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

281–290 of 291 posts

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#281

Post by underlipton »

johngladtj wrote: post #244
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.

Except all you need to do is look at the tax code and see that is untrue.

Not really. Though it would be interesting to see a progressive, wealth-based sales tax implemented, it surely does not exist.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#282

Post by underlipton »

mmaniac wrote: post #241
underlipton wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best solution to homelessness is to crash the housing market so thoroughly that the idea of residential homes as investments becomes anathema for 2 or 3 generations. Then you enact Georgist land policy and loosen zoning and Bob's your uncle.

2008 didn't manage to rid people of that idea.

Because the institutional response was explicitly to backstop housing as an investment instead of as a basic need/resource. If they'd let the banks fail, nationalized the toxic assets that no one else wanted, and wrote off the mortgages as losses, no one in their right mind would have written a new one for years. Which sucks if you make your money off mortgages, but I'm unconvinced that it would have destroyed our ability to build houses.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#283

Post by pandaman »

underlipton wrote: post #280
pandaman wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

>Yes. That's called gentrification.

No, not really. Gentrification is not rich people camping on the streets and parks, look it up.

>Well, that of their dogs.

Well, I am talking about human shit specifically but homeless have dogs too. So people are not bothered with rich people's dog shit? In the same universe where gentrification is when rich people camp on the streets and pass out from drugs?

>They get around this by doing blow instead.

You completely lost me. Are you just playing associations and type whatever first comes into your head? Good luck with that.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#284

Post by caustic-view »

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.

> First they came for the homeless, and I actively celebrated it.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#285

Post by _heimdall »

tsimionescu wrote: post #278
_heimdall wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not ignoring that, I just don't see being homeless and being poor as equivalent. Would you only consider someone poor if they're living in the street?

I also don't the the bench said it wasn't a problem. As best I understand it the question was related to (a) jurisdiction and (b) whether the local law is legal under our existing federal laws.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#286

Post by FireBeyond »

skeledrew wrote: post #271
FireBeyond wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, it turned out it was the case, and as it wound through the appeals process, this was upheld, because when the City knows that this is happening and continues to enforce, it becomes a de facto situation, that the Court specifically called out in their decision:

> A city cannot, via the threat of prosecution, coerce an individual to attend religion-based treatment programs

-- Judge Marsha S. Berzon, for 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#287

Post by underlipton »

pandaman wrote: post #283
underlipton wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 de…

>Yes. That's called gentrification. No, not really. Gentrification is not rich people camping on the streets and parks, look it up. >Well, that of their dogs. Well, I am talking about human shit specifically but homeless have dogs too. So people are not bothered with rich people's dog shit? In the same universe where gentrification is when rich people camp on the streets and pass out from drugs? >They get around this…

>So people are not bothered with rich people's dog shit?

People can't afford to be bothered by rich people's dog shit (which is as bad as people shit, for all intents and purposes), because that would involve passing laws to fine rich people above the "cost of doing business" line and/or taking them to court, both of which are quite expensive ventures.

>Gentrification is not rich people camping on the streets and parks, look it up.

If you don't have the imagination to understand how gentrification could be considered the rich-person equivalent of camping in public places, in that both corrupt existing urban streetscapes to the best of their respective financial abilities, there might not be any reason to continue this conversation.

>You completely lost me.

That much is clear. You seem to be trying really hard to avoid understanding the fairly basic and simple notion that equality under the law is unequal when the laws themselves are. The moral virtue of subjecting everyone to the same standards is undermined by those standards being shaped to punish the likely (immoral) behavior of one group while ignoring the likely (immoral) behavior of another. The only way around this is assuming that rich people just don't do immoral things, which beggars the question; rich people use their money to cast their immoral behavior as moral (or at least amoral). So you end up with this argument, where I say, "Here are the bad things rich people do that are analogous to bad things that poor people do," and you respond, confused, "But those things rich people do aren't all that bad." They'd gotten to you before you'd even known it.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#288

Post by pandaman »

underlipton wrote: post #287
pandaman wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes. That's called gentrification. No, not really. Gentrification is not rich people camping on the streets and parks, look it up. >Well, that of their dogs. Well, I am talking about human shit specifically but homeless have dogs too. So people are not bothered with rich people's dog shit? In the same universe where gentrification is when rich people camp on the streets and pass out from drugs? >They get around this…

>So people are not bothered with rich people's dog shit? People can't afford to be bothered by rich people's dog shit (which is as bad as people shit, for all intents and purposes), because that would involve passing laws to fine rich people above the "cost of doing business" line and/or taking them to court, both of which are quite expensive ventures. >Gentrification is not rich people camping on the streets and par…

Yes, there are laws about not picking up shit after dogs and they apply to rich people who get ticketed and sued for that, don't use your imagination, use Google to check basic facts about the real world.

No, gentrification is not "equivalent" to camping, look it up.

Laws are unequal by definition, why would anybody had two equal laws? Laws are different and not equal to each other. It's irrelevant to the topic of the discussion where you obviously understand that we do indeed punish actions and not poverty but since you like the quote so much you are desperately trying to move the discussion into the one about how being rich is easy. Yes it is. People would rather be rich than poor. If you spend more time thinking and less time imagining you might stumble upon the casual relationship between doing things that are punished and being poor and doing things that are rewarded and being rich.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#289

Post by skeledrew »

FireBeyond wrote: post #286
skeledrew wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, it turned out it was the case, and as it wound through the appeals process, this was upheld, because when the City knows that this is happening and continues to enforce, it becomes a de facto situation, that the Court specifically called out in their decision: > A city cannot, via the threat of prosecution, coerce an individual to attend religion-based treatment programs -- Judge Marsha S. Berzon, for 9th U.S.…

Is a shelter a treatment program? Or a place where someone can get some rest for a night or few, hopefully some food as well?

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#290

Post by engineer_22 »

notaustinpowers wrote: post #108
engineer_22 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No problem, go to your municipal meetings and let them know you are in favor of allowing camping in public spaces in your municipality. If you vote in your local elections your representatives may also have similar opinions to yours. Talk to your friends and neighbors to ask how they feel about it too, maybe they agree. Democracy.

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

The point isn't clear for you is it
Post reply on HN