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

151–160 of 291 posts

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#151

Post by pseudalopex »

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…

> 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.

Most homeless people are working age and homeless under a year. Costs of living are the strongest correlates of homelessness rates.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#152

Post by IncreasePosts »

jjk166 wrote: post #147
IncreasePosts wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or they could just stop being poor and buy a mansion. 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.

No, it's an ultimatum to not turn places intended for the public into your personal campsite. Even if your circumstances are bad.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#153

Post by notaustinpowers »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #149
notaustinpowers wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> People dying in the streets isn't something that should be up for debate or popular vote This is useless hyperbole.

If I cared I wouldn't have posted it.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#154

Post by pseudalopex »

crooked-v wrote: post #133
PheonixPharts wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why not blue cities in blue states? California's governor and San Francisco's mayor praised the decision.[1]

[1] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/sf-supre...

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#155

Post by legitster »

Terr_ wrote: post #120
legitster wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the last 30 years, we have lost ~1,000,000 SRO apartments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-room_occupancy In that time homelessness has grown to 600,000. It's a pretty obvious correlation.

That's only assuming location is irrelevant, and that an abandoned shack on Bodie, California can help a homeless person in New York.

The cities with the biggest homeless populations today lost the most. Read about the chicken-wire hotels in New York.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#156

Post by jjk166 »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #152
jjk166 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they could just stop being poor and buy a mansion. 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.

No, it's an ultimatum to not turn places intended for the public into your personal campsite. Even if your circumstances are bad.

That's not what the word ultimatum means, and they are the public.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#157

Post by pseudalopex »

canada_dry wrote: post #106
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.

Most homeless people do not have a severe mental illness. Costs of living are the strongest correlates of homelessness rates.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#158

Post by gopher_space »

PessimalDecimal wrote: post #29
delecti wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What about going to a homeless shelter, or to a municipality that does allow homeless encampments?

The shelters are full and other areas are in the same situation. When you see people living on the street that means the system is overloaded. The "visible" homeless are the tip of an enormous iceberg.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#159

Post by IncreasePosts »

jjk166 wrote: post #156
IncreasePosts wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's an ultimatum to not turn places intended for the public into your personal campsite. Even if your circumstances are bad.

That's not what the word ultimatum means, and they are the public.

Yes. It is what ultimatum means, because they can no longer flout the law without punishment.

They are "members of the public". That doesn't mean they can unilaterally dictate the laws of society. If they were "the public", then they could just change the law. I wonder why they can't? Because most people don't want anyone setting up their household in a public park.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#160

Post by pseudalopex »

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…

> some tools where you can be pragmatic about where an issue is presently taking place

Grants Pass said nowhere in the city. And nearly 40% of cities according to a cited brief.

Post reply on HN