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

161–170 of 291 posts

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#161

Post by pseudalopex »

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…

> The Court didn't make it illegal for cities to provide services to the homeless.

Who claimed they did? The complaint I saw was they made it legal for cities not to provide services.

> I don't understand this notion that court rulings should be based on social policy instead of Constitutional law.

What is cruel and unusual punishment is a constitutional question.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#162

Post by pseudalopex »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #135
crooked-v wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> They can sleep on public land. Just not public land where it is illegal to sleep.

Those were the same in Grants Pass. And nearly 40% of cities according to a cited brief.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#163

Post by jjk166 »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #159
jjk166 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They weren't unilaterally dictating the laws of society, until 5 hours ago it was the US constitution which said this was the law in this country. 6 people unilaterally dictated the new law of society that enables the mob to ignore the rights of the few.

Enjoy your park.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#164

Post by Supermancho »

Xylakant wrote: post #52
PessimalDecimal wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What if just all municipalities forbid homeless encampments? The result of this will be a race to the bottom, as more and more municipalities ban homeless camps, the negative effects will concentrate on fewer and fewer municipalities, making the issue worse and worse. This will in turn drive them to forbid camps as well.

> What if just all municipalities forbid homeless encampments?

If all municipalities did this instantly and provided transportation to the homeless - either unincorporated parts of a state, or jail, most would choose jail. Nobody wants to try to survive in the wilderness.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#165

Post by polski-g »

alan-hn wrote: post #142
polski-g wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that relevant? People who do own things do not get to trespass; people who do not own things, likewise, do not get to trespass.

How does one trespass on public land

[flagged]

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#167

Post by matrix87 »

notaustinpowers wrote: post #75
engineer_22 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One city banned camping in public, it was challenged, SC said "yep, that's a fair law". After this decision other cities may also ban camping, while some cities may welcome public camping. The SC is leaving it to the lowest level of government to decide for themselves, upholding a democratic principle.

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.

> who have nowhere else to go

I call BS, there's thousands of other places in the country aside from downtown SF or other areas where they decide to congregate

SC isn't banning homelessness nationwide, I highly doubt every municipality will ban it at once. It's just giving municipalities that suddenly get hordes of them showing up the ability to make them go elsewhere

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#168

Post by fragmede »

Supermancho wrote: post #164
Xylakant wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if just all municipalities forbid homeless encampments? The result of this will be a race to the bottom, as more and more municipalities ban homeless camps, the negative effects will concentrate on fewer and fewer municipalities, making the issue worse and worse. This will in turn drive them to forbid camps as well.

> What if just all municipalities forbid homeless encampments? If all municipalities did this instantly and provided transportation to the homeless - either unincorporated parts of a state, or jail, most would choose jail. Nobody wants to try to survive in the wilderness.

You might not, but nobody? There are those that do. There are even TV shows, multiple reality shows for watching people do just that. It’s not easy living for sure but getting a cabin out in the woods and trying to live off the land is totally a thing people do.

For a real world example, you don’t go to the woods outside of Seattle because there are unhoused people living there and it's dangerous to go there.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#169

Post by HDThoreaun »

pseudalopex wrote: post #162
HDThoreaun wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> They can sleep on public land. Just not public land where it is illegal to sleep. Those were the same in Grants Pass. And nearly 40% of cities according to a cited brief.

The world is much larger than Grants Pass. There is unincorporated land just outside city limits, and blm land not far

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#170

Post by polski-g »

jjk166 wrote: post #132
polski-g wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some parks have rules against smoking, grilling, flying kites, bringing dogs, playing lawn darts, being there after 9pm (that's the trespassing part), and yes, even camping. And those are all voted on by elected officials. If you don't like it, vote for different councilmen.
Post reply on HN