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

251–260 of 291 posts

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#251

Post by ehvatum »

lesuorac wrote: post #222
skeledrew wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you staying in someone's house you generally have to follow their rules. Unless said rules are... over the top. Is attendance and - at least token - participation in religious activity considered over the top? What if it was a case of starvation instead of (or in addition to) the homelessness?

Can I set-up a homeless shelter on a farm and unless you pick strawberries you aren't allow to stay? Shelter with strings attached shouldn't count as a shelter.

Yeah, a shelter is only truly a shelter if you don’t pay for it. Paying for a home is the very definition of homelessness, after all.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#253

Post by ehvatum »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #74
lwhalen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you tell the families who scrimped, saved, and generally busted ass to be able to afford their homes?

Good news, instead of spending $45K/year of your hard earned tax money to keep Homeless Joe in jail, we're going to spend $10K of your hard earned tax money to keep him housed.

You’re not going to be any happier with the circumstances of people living in enormous urban housing projects.

You should want a society where we are all rewarded for looking after each other, in the ways we are each best at. Nothing else can work.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#254

Post by HDThoreaun »

floxy wrote: post #177
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…

>The solutions are institutionalization Isn't there a lot of rose-colored glasses around institutionalization of the mentally ill? The reason we got rid of it is because it is essentially imprisonment, with all sorts of abuses and not some sort of all-inclusive luxury resort.

No one wants to return to titicut follies, but why cant we have properly funded and regulated mental institutions?

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#255

Post by HDThoreaun »

corinroyal wrote: post #224
SeanAnderson wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On some level, the answer is likely none because there's not much in it for them. That said, cities declare themselves as "sanctuary cities" well enough so it's not unreasonable to think this could be extended - although immigrants provide more economic benefits than the unhoused. Still, it doesn't have to be ungrounded in numbers. Take GDP per capita for a city, normalize it by cost of living, and pass a federal law…

It's a myth that homeless people move to better cities. If we could do that, we wouldn't be homeless. People tend to be homeless near the last place they were housed.

No it is not. This is incredibly easy to see by just visiting different cities. Northern cities like chicago and minneapolis have very small homeless populations. Its not because no one in these cities lost their job or because the cities are dealing with homelessness better than west coast cities. The homeless in the these cities leave.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#256

Post by HDThoreaun »

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

A lot of public land has hours when it is closed. Every park in my city closes at 11, after that you are trespassing.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#257

Post by skeledrew »

lesuorac wrote: post #222
skeledrew wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you staying in someone's house you generally have to follow their rules. Unless said rules are... over the top. Is attendance and - at least token - participation in religious activity considered over the top? What if it was a case of starvation instead of (or in addition to) the homelessness?

Can I set-up a homeless shelter on a farm and unless you pick strawberries you aren't allow to stay? Shelter with strings attached shouldn't count as a shelter.

Sure. I don't see a problem if the work is within reasonable parameters. This is a private entity offering use of their property under reasonable terms.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#258

Post by kelseyfrog »

AllegedAlec wrote: post #235
kelseyfrog wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's inhumane to treat people as a punishment?

"All people to the right of my position are inhumane" lel

If you have a response that follows HN guidelines, I'd love to hear it.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#259

Post by cminusminus »

This really makes me sad. I used to struggle with housing and spent time living out of my car. I got lucky and was able to work my way into a tech career over a decade, but it feels like criminalization of hardship is just pulling the rug out from under people that really just need someone to care.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#260

Post by FireBeyond »

skeledrew wrote: post #210
FireBeyond wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, polic…

If you staying in someone's house you generally have to follow their rules. Unless said rules are... over the top. Is attendance and - at least token - participation in religious activity considered over the top? What if it was a case of starvation instead of (or in addition to) the homelessness?

Should you be subject to arrest if you don't want to be subject to religious conditions?

You may want to review the Constitution on that one.

Post reply on HN