141–150 of 291 posts
Discussion from when the argument was being heard: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40107034
What the Supreme Court case on tent encampments could mean for homeless people - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40107034 - April 2024 (88 comments)
*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.
If someone sees a sign says "Camping prohibited", and they decide to camp there anyway, that's mens rea.
It doesn't depend on whether they had other options, or whether they desired to purposefully harm others, or whether they were very sure they'd be able to avoid harming the grass, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't technically make being poor illegal. The sad truth is that plenty of people will living on the streets may now be breaking the law simply by having nowhere else to go, but that shit will roll up hill eventually. Courts and jails don't have the capacity to deal with charging everyone in that situation. Either cops will avoid arresting people for it or cities will eventually have to dramatically expand housi…
Something can be illegal even if cops are not resting everyone who does it. That's the worse situation in fact, when it becomes the sole discretion of individual police officers who to punish.
If cops have to stop enforcing it the laws will eventually be overturned. If cops do enforce it courts and jails will back up, eventually the law would either be dropped or more support would be built out to help those in need.
That's not to say I like the law. I would much prefer it didn't pass, and in general I disagree with a legal system that is focused on punishing citizens rather than helping them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You were corrected on this above and chose to repeat it.
Concluding price from supply only is nonsense. In your interval, the population and real incomes rose. They rose faster than new housing formation, particularly in the cities which have a homeless problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go to church or go to jail is not a choice we force people to make in this country.
It's not "church or jail". The shelter is just one option. They could also crash on a friend's couch, or go somewhere with a shelter that doesn't require religious service.
No one is sleeping outside because they don't want to sleep on a friend's couch. It's a government ultimatum to force people to attend religious services, plain and simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Homeless people don't tend to have the mobility you imagine.
There is a charity run homeless shelter in the town where they were camping on public grounds.
That "charity" is a religious organization which requires all residents to abide by strict "Christian values" including immediate abstinence from all drugs (even nicotine) and sex, attendance to multiple daily sermons, etc. while also working for the organization.
The group filed a brief with the court arguing for the ruling we got, stating that people were choosing to camp on the streets instead of go to the shelter as if that weren't an indictment of their offering that they believe a significant portion of their residents were only there because they would otherwise be arrested and not because it was actually a better choice than being on the street.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 :)
This is useless hyperbole.