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

181–190 of 291 posts

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#181

Post by matrix87 »

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…

I don't think they're going to hunt them down like the gestapo

If the homeless just kept to themselves and weren't actively causing public disturbances in places like SF, this wouldn't be an issue

And it's an issue that affects some municipalities more than others. If a horde of homeless just show up in SF one day and strain infrastructure, I don't think it's unreasonable for SF to be able to do something about that

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#182

Post by diogenescynic »

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-...

This just shifts the problem from homelessness to crack shacks and drug dens. I don't want to deal with either.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#183

Post by FireBeyond »

Terr_ wrote: post #101
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?

> 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 .

> 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.

Boise recently had to deal with this.

Passed a law that said it was illegal to sleep on the streets or public property if a shelter bed was available.

Problem? No shelter beds were generally available but two religious shelters said they were "always available", even when they had no actual beds. Ergo, police made arrests because the shelters were available, even if, factually, there wasn't. That the shelters SAID there were was enough for the police to arrest.

Adding to the problem was both of those shelters required both attendance AND participation in multiple religious ceremonies per day as a requisite of you being there, even if there did happen to be a bed.

So now you had a situation where the police were able to arrest homeless for refusing to go to these shelters, which may not have beds available, and that forced religious participation to be there.

That was a law that made it onto the books, until it was rightfully challenged. But the fact it made it to legislation in the first place is problematic.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#184

Post by FireBeyond »

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?

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids both rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#185

Post by diogenescynic »

alan-hn wrote: post #105
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…

So where do you suggest homeless people sleep

How about we start with 1000 feet away from housing, schools, and businesses?

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#186

Post by FireBeyond »

thegrim33 wrote: post #51
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?

I know you're not actually asking for answer but the US spends trillions of dollars a year supporting homeless and otherwise disadvantaged people. There are public programs that exist solely to provide these people the help they need. In most cities something like half the homeless refuse free shelter.

> US spends trillions of dollars a year supporting homeless and otherwise disadvantaged people

Horseshit.

It's less than $50B, most of which goes to subsidized housing. The actual amount spent directly on homelessness is likely less than $20B.

> In most cities something like half the homeless refuse free shelter.

I guarantee you there aren't free shelter beds for half the US's homeless population.

These are just talking points.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#187

Post by Xylakant »

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.

How is that anyhow helpful? Jail is much worse for the homeless and it's actually much more expensive to society than providing a home. If the goal is harm reduction, provide them with housing and support. The cruelty of the law is the point.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#188

Post by FireBeyond »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #144
jjk166 wrote: post #136

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.

Actually, in Boise, it literally was. If a religious shelter said they had a bed (and one of them said they would "always take someone in", even if they didn't have a bed), it was an arrestable offense to be sleeping on public property.

> They could also crash on a friend's couch

Ahhh, AirBnB for the homeless, of course. Because when you're profoundly troubled by mental illness, or addiction issues, everyone opens their doors and homes to you.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#189

Post by vasilipupkin »

diogenescynic wrote: post #179
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…

>I feel like the outcome of this is unilaterally bad. As a resident of California, I wholeheartedly disagree. The status quo could not continue. We need law and order. We can't have people just sleeping and camping wherever they want like California has been allowing. Many many public parks and open spaces are now taken over by open drug scenes (homeless camps) where crime thrives.

Agree, and I feel like when people say “sleeping” it sounds innocuous. But what do these people do if they need to go number 2 in the middle of the night? There is a reason we have campsites, sanitation and just basic limits on insane behavior. “Where should they go” is something I hear often. Well, guess what, if we create significant disincentives to just doing whatever you feel like just because, at least some fraction of these people will find somewhere to go, a family member, a shelter, somewhere. And we can build more shelters, sure, but this has gotten out of control.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#190

Post by sn9 »

diogenescynic wrote: post #180
pseudalopex wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>Costs of living are the strongest correlates of homelessness rates. I suspect this is strongly skewed by half of all homeless living in California where they seem to be mostly from out of state and coming here for the weather, lenient drug laws, and many social benefits. You can just ask them and they will tell you--most of them are from red states where they'd be locked up for what they do here. As such, they came…

Recent research shows this largely isn't the case: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/california...
Post reply on HN