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

271–280 of 291 posts

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#271

Post by skeledrew »

FireBeyond wrote: post #260
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?

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.

That isn't there case though. You're being subject to arrest for failing to use an available shelter. The religious conditions are a side effect. Similar to how taking a dump is a side effect of eating, and so if you want to avoid taking one, you'd have to avoid eating, but you have to deal with the prospect of death as a consequence. You don't die from not taking a dump (usually), but from not eating.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#272

Post by skeledrew »

snypher wrote: post #263
skeledrew wrote: post #203

So let me get this straight... People unable to afford a home, with no communal shelter, are fined for making alternate arrangements. Of course, given that they're already in a bad financial situation, they won't be able to pay the fines. So it's jail time. I guess that's a kind of shelter, but then what happens when the jails become full? Where do the extras go then? And what happens to those released with fresh mar…

Unfortunately the way they want this to work is that the jails never becomes full and constantly expand instead.

In that case, having a record may become more or less normalized it seems. If the conditions are acceptable, then the jails will just become like regular shelters. The only downside is a potential employer would have access to the knowledge that someone got to the point of using one.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#273

Post by matrix87 »

diogenescynic wrote: post #270
SauciestGNU wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here in my part of Michigan. Authorities operate a very proactive search and destroy program for encampments of homeless people.

I wish that was a thing in California.

It probably will be after this ruling

Local municipalities couldn't get away with it because there's a very vocal and litigious activist crowd

Considering how obsessed people are with property values out here, this is probably going to trigger a bunch of changes

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#274

Post by tptacek »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #267
tptacek wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just obviously not true, regarding Humboldt Park. It's so not true, it's Google Maps not true. "Humboldt Park t-" literally autocompletes to "tent city" in an incognito window for me. And, like, I drive through there a couple times a week and believe my lying eyes. Regarding the origin of California homeless people, this is an empirically studied question; you don't have to derive your answer from first princi…

I walk through humboldt daily. The tent city is 3 tents. People make a big deal of it because our homeless problem is so small compared to the west coasts.

It’s just obviously not 3 tents.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#275

Post by tsimionescu »

_heimdall wrote: post #262
tsimionescu wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is though that, at least in some jurisdictions, being so poor that you can't afford a house is now effectively illegal. Sure, the same law prevents the rich from camping outside, but that is irrelevant. The relevant thing is that there is no legal way to be homeless in those jurisdictions. And note that cops don't have to actually arrest people in order to enforce those laws. They can simply prevent them fr…

We can agree, though, that the ruling doesn't make being poor illegal though? Right? I get that you are saying functionally its illegal to be poor, but that isn't actually what the ruling covered. At least in my opinion, that extrapolation really muddies the water when it isn't necessary. The fact that we have so many homeless people and that courts ruled cities are allowed to ban people from camping outside regardle…

No, I think it's important to keep pointing out what this decision was really about. They didn't hear a case about camping outside at night, they explicitly heard a case about making it illegal to be homeless in a jurisdiction. All of the most relevant arguments related specifically to homeless people.

The effect on homeless people is not some unintended consequence of the original law or of the SC's decision. It was explicitly what the whole case was about: homeless people complained that a law forbidding them from sleeping outside in a municipality was effectively punishing them for being homeless, and a federal judge agreed. The SC also agreed, but found that this doesn't violate their constitutional rights, so that it is constitutionally allowed to punish them for being homeless.

This is an exact illustration of the famous satirical quote about the law being equal to all, equally punishing the rich and the poor for sleeping under bridges. Only this time it's not satire, it's the explicit decision of the SC.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#276

Post by tsimionescu »

nxm wrote: post #229
tsimionescu wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's up to elected district attorneys.

The DAs decide whether to pursue a specific case, but it's the police department that starts the case, not the DA. The DA is not out there patrolling the streets finding people in violation and deciding whether to call the cops. The cops patrol, find a person they don't like, take them to the station, and then the DA can decide whether to charge them with a crime or not.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#277

Post by _heimdall »

tsimionescu wrote: post #275
_heimdall wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can agree, though, that the ruling doesn't make being poor illegal though? Right? I get that you are saying functionally its illegal to be poor, but that isn't actually what the ruling covered. At least in my opinion, that extrapolation really muddies the water when it isn't necessary. The fact that we have so many homeless people and that courts ruled cities are allowed to ban people from camping outside regardle…

No, I think it's important to keep pointing out what this decision was really about. They didn't hear a case about camping outside at night, they explicitly heard a case about making it illegal to be homeless in a jurisdiction. All of the most relevant arguments related specifically to homeless people. The effect on homeless people is not some unintended consequence of the original law or of the SC's decision. It was…

You and I clearly read completely different court opinions here.

I see a case where a local government made it illegal to sleep outside and a supreme court decision that says this is within local governments' jurisdiction and doesn't violate any federal laws. It specifically doesn't make being poor illegal, though obviously it will greatly impact the homeless.

Its a huge leap you're making to claim that the law or the ruling makes being poor illegal, and I don't see that claim supported by either the new law or the ruling. I get that you strongly disagree with it and find the law to be immoral, and I totally agree with that. But personal emotion doesn't change the words written down and misrepresenting the law doesn't do anyone any good.

The law sucks, but it doesn't make being poor illegal. Plenty of people who are poor still have a roof over their heads, and there are homeless people who sleep in shelters rather than on the streets. If neither of those are illegal then the law couldn't have made being poor illegal.

You don't need to make the leap to misrepresenting the law to point out how terrible it is. The law as written is garbage.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#278

Post by tsimionescu »

_heimdall wrote: post #277
tsimionescu wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think it's important to keep pointing out what this decision was really about. They didn't hear a case about camping outside at night, they explicitly heard a case about making it illegal to be homeless in a jurisdiction. All of the most relevant arguments related specifically to homeless people. The effect on homeless people is not some unintended consequence of the original law or of the SC's decision. It was…

You and I clearly read completely different court opinions here. I see a case where a local government made it illegal to sleep outside and a supreme court decision that says this is within local governments' jurisdiction and doesn't violate any federal laws. It specifically doesn't make being poor illegal, though obviously it will greatly impact the homeless. Its a huge leap you're making to claim that the law or th…

You're again ignoring the fact that the law was before the Supreme Court specifically because it makes it illegal to be homeless. And the Supreme Court agreed with that, but found that it is not a problem.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#279

Post by lwhalen »

PessimalDecimal wrote: post #62
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?

They get to pay for other people's stuff. See how this works?

You (and the rest of the scolds in this thread) are allowed to do whatever you want with your money. A $3000/mo mortgage spread between ten (or more!) like-minded friends makes for a very affordable hobby. Get you a second house, open it up to all and sundry, and be the change you want to see in the world. No, it won't solve homelessness overnight, but it's not nothing. You'd be doing something in-line with your values, without forcing others to spend their tax-dollars on it, and you get ALL the points. If you blog/vlog/whatever about it regularly, you might get others interested and following your example. Bam - homegrown grass-roots homelessness dent, without third-party involvement.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#280

Post by underlipton »

pandaman wrote: post #217
underlipton wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a hypothetical opposite - “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to use money to improve their dwelling, to purchase unnecessary luxury goods, and to pay for basic goods a rate commensurate with their means” - does not exist. The laws that "nobody is above" punish poverty, but not wealth. That's the distinction.

From what I could understand from your message, you are saying that the law is designed to punish poverty and the actual actions (loitering, theft and harassment) are just excuses? E.g. in the topical case, people would be fine with the encampments on the streets and in the parks if they consisted of rich people? Like rich person shit on one's lawn won't bother anyone, rich people's blood encrusted needles are fine c…

>E.g. in the topical case, people would be fine with the encampments on the streets and in the parks if they consisted of rich people?

Yes. That's called gentrification. And they don't limit themselves to parks; they'll happily go after your property - not through purchase at a fair price, but through legal maneuvers and political influence that aren't available to people of lesser means. And this is arguably more destructive to the fabric of the existing community than a few tents (whatever you might think of what replaces it).

>Like rich person shit on one's lawn won't bother anyone,

Well, that of their dogs.

>rich people's blood encrusted needles are fine

They get around this by doing blow instead.

>and a rich person tent blocking right of way is an amusement to marvel at?

Every oversized SUV built in the past 2 decades.

Post reply on HN