US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps • Hacker News Board

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#131

Post by asdff » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 8:13 PM UTC

crooked-v wrote: post #127

asdff wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In shelters the city state or federal government sets up. To me we are essentially hosting a concert with no bathrooms. The answer isn't to let people pee and poop without bathrooms at the concert, the answer is to police that behavior while also providing bathrooms.

The whole point of this judgment is that cities can now illegalize homelessness without needing to build any shelters .

Well, most cities with a homeless crisis today don't exactly have the spare jail capacity to actually enforce anything like that, so I think giving some tools where you can be pragmatic about where an issue is presently taking place while you can attempt to solve it on the back end is useful. My city has already passed laws about homeless camps near dangerous intersections for pedestrians who have to step into the street to avoid the camp, laws about not camping near schools or childcare centers, and its done quite a bit to help the average pedestrian in the neighborhood as a result.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#132

Post by jjk166 » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 8:14 PM UTC

polski-g wrote: post #8

notaustinpowers wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's now, effectively, illegal to just exist as a homeless person. Sleeping in your car? Jail. Sleeping under a bridge? Jail. Sleeping on a park bench? Jail. Sleeping in the woods? Jail.

3 of those things are simply trespassing.

None of those are trespassing. You're permitted to be in your car, you're permitted to be on a park bench, you're permitted to be under a bridge, you're permitted to be in the woods. It's only when you need to be there that it's a crime.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#133

Post by crooked-v » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 8:14 PM UTC

PheonixPharts wrote: post #60

coolspot wrote: post #24

Homeless need shelter and help. It is inhumane that we let them rot on the streets. City dwellers need safe and clean streets and public transportation. Kids should be able to walk to school by themselves. These two things don’t need to be in conflict.

Many people misunderstand what this case was about. > Homeless need shelter and help. It is inhumane that we let them rot on the streets. The issue being argued was not that homeless should be able to camp where ever and whenever they want. This issue was that if you don't provide shelter then you cannot kick them out of public spaces . If that was the law, then it would mean you need to build shelters if you don't w…

I genuinely expect mass arrests and quasi-deportations of the homeless (along the lines of "we won't prosecute you if you take this bus ticket to San Francisco") over the next few months in red states and in red cities in blue states.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#134

Post by Terr_ » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 8:14 PM UTC

goodluckchuck wrote: post #15

Yes and no. They said it’s not cruel and unusual punishment to be fined / spend a few days in jail. The real issue should have been intent, but the litigants and lower courts didn’t base the case on lack of capacity to comply / lack of mens rea / etc. They wanted a precedent allowing for urban camping even if you’re not homeless.

I'm not sure if the plaintiffs' arguments were quite that bad, since the ruling mentions that they raised questions of capacity and "involuntary" situations, ex:

> Plaintiffs insist the Court should extend Robinson to prohibit the enforcement of laws that proscribe certain acts that are in some sense “involuntary,” because some homeless individuals cannot help but do what the law forbids. [...] this Court already rejected it in Powell v. Texas [where] a defendant who had been convicted under a Texas statute making it a crime to “ ‘get drunk or be found in a state of intoxication in any public place.’ ” [...] argued that his drunkenness was an “‘involuntary’” byproduct of his status as an alcoholic.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#135

Post by HDThoreaun » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 8:16 PM UTC

crooked-v wrote: post #65

asdff wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> regulating where you can do certain things If people who don't have a home can't sleep on public land, where can they sleep?

They can sleep on public land. Just not public land where it is illegal to sleep. This ruling also allows cities to set up designated camping grounds and banning camping elsewhere which courts ruled was banned in Chico. Why should we accept that the homeless can sleep wherever they like and ruin all the public land for the rest of us?

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#136

Post by jjk166 » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 8:16 PM UTC

IncreasePosts wrote: post #130

jjk166 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which requires people staying there to attend religious services.

The horror. They can just go and...not pay attention? Just like most people who attend religious services.

Go to church or go to jail is not a choice we force people to make in this country.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#137

Post by crooked-v » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 8:16 PM UTC

notaustinpowers wrote: post #117

crooked-v wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An empty home in a town with no jobs and no services doesn't help anybody. If you look at the places that people actually want to live in the US, there are housing shortages in every major US metro area ( https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/perspectives... ).

Copying from my other comment. My comment points out the failure of the "just build more homes" idea as a solution for homelessness. "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…

> We have enough homes.

We don't have enough homes in the right places. That's the point of the report in the article I linked, which lays out the number of homes in the major metro areas that people actually want to live and shows that literally all of them have a shortage.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#138

Post by Ferret7446 » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 8:17 PM UTC

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #53

The Court didn't make it illegal for cities to provide services to the homeless. Some, many, (most?) simply find it easier to push homeless around between each other and off into the margins (outside of their municipal boundaries) instead of addressing the issue. The Court isn't a social services agency and rulings shouldn't be made on that basis. Cites, states, and even the federal government have the power to addre…

Probably because it is easier than addressing the issue, since no one has ever really solved the problem of homeless throughout recorded history.

Lots of people claim there are easy solutions, yet not one of them seems to actually work; homelessness exists in every major city today, even the ones where you don't see them as a tourist.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#139

Post by crooked-v » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 8:18 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #131

crooked-v wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of this judgment is that cities can now illegalize homelessness without needing to build any shelters .

Well, most cities with a homeless crisis today don't exactly have the spare jail capacity to actually enforce anything like that, so I think giving some tools where you can be pragmatic about where an issue is presently taking place while you can attempt to solve it on the back end is useful. My city has already passed laws about homeless camps near dangerous intersections for pedestrians who have to step into the st…

I think the most likely "pragmatic tools" that will show up will amount to homeless people being told "take this bus ticket to NYC or San Francisco or we will make your life hell for the next year with maximally unpleasant prosecution".

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#140

Post by notaustinpowers » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 8:23 PM UTC

polski-g wrote: post #123

jjav wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On property they own or property they have been granted permission to occupy. By definition, the homeless don't have that.

The homeless have permission to be in many places at many different times. If they are unhappy with the current place and time limitations then they should vote for representatives to change such limitations.

Let's see then. In order to vote, you will need:

Driver's License or State ID. In my state (Georgia) to get these you must also provide a birth certificate or passport, as well as two documents showing Georgia residency (I.E., utility bill/phone bill that must have your address listed on them.

Okay, so those are unavailable to the homeless as they most likely will not have their birth certificate or passport with them (as belongings are routinely confiscated by police during removals of homeless encampments). Nor will they have an address or a utility bill in their name. Oh, also, Georgia requires a residential address for these ID cards so while you can use a PO Box on the card itself, they still need proof of a residential address for their records.

So, how again are the homeless expected to vote when they, legally, can't even get a drivers license or state ID card? This isn't even getting into the $25 it costs to get a copy of your birth certificate or the $32 fee for get a state ID. $57 could potentially feed them for a week, and when you don't know when your next meal is going to be, what's more important to you in that situation?