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

61–70 of 291 posts

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#61

Post by _heimdall »

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?

It doesn't technically make being poor illegal. The sad truth is that plenty of people will living on the streets may now be breaking the law simply by having nowhere else to go, but that shit will roll up hill eventually. Courts and jails don't have the capacity to deal with charging everyone in that situation. Either cops will avoid arresting people for it or cities will eventually have to dramatically expand housing options for the homeless.

In the meantime, yeah this is terrible for anyone who is homeless. It could very well do a disservice describing eh ruling as making being poor illegal though. The ruling only covers homeless camps, there are still a ton of poor people who do still have a roof over their heads that aren't breaking the law by being poor.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#62

Post by PessimalDecimal »

lwhalen wrote: post #48
Arrath wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we're set on expending resources. If we're going to spend the resources to incarcerate these folks, would not the resources be better spent (with much better potential RoI, no less) on assisting persons in obtaining living situations?

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?

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#63

Post by engineer_22 »

notaustinpowers wrote: post #7
jowdones wrote: post #2

Good!

It's now, effectively, illegal to just exist as a homeless person. Sleeping in your car? Jail. Sleeping under a bridge? Jail. Sleeping on a park bench? Jail. Sleeping in the woods? Jail.

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.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#64

Post by vundercind »

paxys wrote: post #39
notaustinpowers wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are enough vacant homes in the US to give every homeless person 25 homes. That is not the root cause of the problem.

A bunch of cheap land or vacant homes 3000 miles away aren't going to solve the homeless problem in your city, or any other major urban area. Ultimately people stay where they want to stay, for a variety of reasons.

Yep, fifty vacant houses in and around a tiny losing-10%-population-per-decade 500-pop town in the middle of Wyoming doesn’t help anyone. No jobs, and good luck efficiently delivering public support to the person you stick in that one house with a mold problem and sewage tank that needed to be replaced years ago, a half-mile down a dirt road six miles outside of town. Without a car.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#65

Post by crooked-v »

asdff wrote: post #22
sschueller wrote: post #6

This is insane, so you are at your lowest in life and it is now illegal for you to exist.

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…

> 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?

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#66

Post by curtis3389 »

sschueller wrote: post #6

This is insane, so you are at your lowest in life and it is now illegal for you to exist.

This is quite horrifying, but not particularly surprising. Most Americans have dehumanized homeless people, because if we truly saw them as equal humans, we would have to acknowledge that we all exist in a system where our humanity is contingent on the contents of our bank account.

Programmers today can feel the angst caused by this dehumanization when they look at LLMs generating code. We can see that our humanity could be ripped from us at any time.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#67

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Terr_ wrote: post #21

To wit: > Held: The enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

In part because the Eighth Amendment “prohibits certain methods a government may impose after a criminal conviction, but it does not ‘impose [any] substantive limits on what conduct a state may criminalise.’”

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#68

Post by jp191919 »

paxys wrote: post #39
notaustinpowers wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are enough vacant homes in the US to give every homeless person 25 homes. That is not the root cause of the problem.

A bunch of cheap land or vacant homes 3000 miles away aren't going to solve the homeless problem in your city, or any other major urban area. Ultimately people stay where they want to stay, for a variety of reasons.

>Ultimately people stay where they want to stay, for a variety of reasons.

With the majority of homeless, the reason would be easier access to illicit substances.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#69

Post by notaustinpowers »

lwhalen wrote: post #48
Arrath wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we're set on expending resources. If we're going to spend the resources to incarcerate these folks, would not the resources be better spent (with much better potential RoI, no less) on assisting persons in obtaining living situations?

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

"Congrats, still doesn't mean that a homeless person should die in a ditch on the side of the road as some form of karmic balance."
Post reply on HN