Homeless Supreme Court case

Are there not already laws on the books criminalizing the problems that sometimes happen when homeless people exist in parks or other public places? It seems like it would make more sense to enforce those laws against the people violating them rather than simply criminalize the existence of people without housing. The city at the center of the current supreme court case has at least 600 homeless people and possibly twice that depending on who you ask. And precisely one homeless shelter. A private religious one with only 139 beds that requires that people be sober, not in romantic relationships, and willing to regularly attend religious indoctrination sessions if they want housing. The city itself apparently can't be bothered to even make a minimal effort to help the homeless since it operates precisely zero homeless shelter beds. What exactly are the unhoused people in that community supposed to do to avoid violating this absurd law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

Morally, of course, but the devil is in the details. The homeless need incentives to change their lifestyle and there's both the stick and carrot to balance, although neither seems to work perfectly.

---

Lifestyle--assuming you mean drugging and drinking--is just one cause of homelessness. Affordable housing seems to be a bigger reason for people being on the streets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homele...ousing%20costs. It's a very complex issue with no easy answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Does a human being have a right to exist in the world?

---

Depends.
What country, status, etc. etc. etc.
In America, you can lose your right to exist, if convicted of a death penalty crime.
Then you could bring the whole abortion thing into this discussion and that brings another right to exist question.
But in general, over the centuries, no, people didn't have a right to exist. From times in Greece where weak babies could be discarded, to slaves of various countries, to those of another country, religion, etc, to even modern times, for example when my bio great aunt that I never met to the best of my knowledge, told me I didn't, from her deathbed.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are kind of bedrock principals here. Maybe I missed the part about ‘life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as long as one can afford a roof over their head’?

There are a couple of cities here that have pilot or test programs giving a basic guaranteed income to homeless that meet the test criteria. Up to to $1000/month for two years is one example. Out here in the burbs there are still some homeless, but the camps I've seen around are rare or gone altogether. I've talked with our country open space rangers and the approach seems to be they are first offered some sort of mental counselling and also some minimal housing. The they are served a 7 day notice that the camp will be removed. I think some of the housing may be with a time limit to stay. Some of the camps are so unsanitary they've required outside firms with specialized hazmat training and equipment.

I think the problems in the inner city are worse and homeless areas more common. They have a plan to covert old motels into homeless housing, but there doesn't seem to be enough space, especially with the influx of immigrants. To pay for all of it the city has proposed cutbacks in certain programs that maintain parks and other amenities. So all of this comes at a cost to the productive tax payer.

I have a friend who has volunteered at a soup kitchen. Her story is that about a third of the homeless have mental and possibly drug/alcohol problems, a third only have drug and or alcohol problems, and a third just prefer the lifestyle or have become trapped in it. Fact being that some could work given the incentives. Recent homeless immigrants are a different story from what I've seen. They generally want to work, but either can't find jobs or don't have the necessary work permits. The city tries to help, but there just are not enough resources to go around. My local recreation center was closed for a while to help the immigrant influx.

I'm probably missing something, but that's my take on things around here and some of it is working. However, I still don't think the federal government has the right to tell localities how to handle things. It's a complicated situation, but there are common fixes that use money or housing give aways at the expense of the tax payer and may involve a loss of other services within local budgets. Who's to say how that should go? There are no doubt people who consider these functional remedies as a version of socialism.

I think there is a spectrum of homelessness ranging from the totally feckless to people whipsawed by the housing market to privileged kids getting suspended from Barnard and whining about being homeless to claim some sort of intersectional merit badge. I think the problem needs to be addressed with a complicated spectrum of solutions.

My experience in the field has been that many people are simply not capable of the responsibility of homeownership even with steep subsidies. Public housing can be tricky from both a NIMBY and crime standpoint. Rent control and zoning can serve to warp the housing market in all kinds of ways.

Rhetoric about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all well and good, but the many differing segments of the homeless population will need to be addressed at different levels in many potentially messy ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

Rhetoric about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all well and good, but the many differing segments of the homeless population will need to be addressed at different levels in many potentially messy ways.

---

I agree. However one of those ways of dealing with it should not be to simply criminalize existence and then shrug one's shoulders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

I agree. However one of those ways of dealing with it should not be to simply criminalize existence and then shrug one's shoulders.

---

As I understand it, the case before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with criminalizing anyone's existence but rather determines whether or not it's legal for local/regional ordinances to restrict how public spaces are used through civil or perhaps criminal penalties for mis-use.

I think we can all commiserate with poor homeless souls with little to no options for safe housing while also backing ordinances designed to protect public spaces from mis-use and possible destruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

As I understand it, the case before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with criminalizing anyone's existence but rather determines whether or not it's legal for local/regional ordinances to restrict how public spaces are used through civil or perhaps criminal penalties for mis-use.

I think we can all commiserate with poor homeless souls with little to no options for safe housing while also backing ordinances designed to protect public spaces from mis-use and possible destruction.

---

So where exactly should the homeless of Grants Pass sleep?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

There are a couple of cities here that have pilot or test programs giving a basic guaranteed income to homeless that meet the test criteria. Up to to $1000/month for two years is one example. Out here in the burbs there are still some homeless, but the camps I've seen around are rare or gone altogether. I've talked with our country open space rangers and the approach seems to be they are first offered some sort of mental counselling and also some minimal housing. The they are served a 7 day notice that the camp will be removed. I think some of the housing may be with a time limit to stay. Some of the camps are so unsanitary they've required outside firms with specialized hazmat training and equipment.

I think the problems in the inner city are worse and homeless areas more common. They have a plan to covert old motels into homeless housing, but there doesn't seem to be enough space, especially with the influx of immigrants. To pay for all of it the city has proposed cutbacks in certain programs that maintain parks and other amenities. So all of this comes at a cost to the productive tax payer.

I have a friend who has volunteered at a soup kitchen. Her story is that about a third of the homeless have mental and possibly drug/alcohol problems, a third only have drug and or alcohol problems, and a third just prefer the lifestyle or have become trapped in it. Fact being that some could work given the incentives. Recent homeless immigrants are a different story from what I've seen. They generally want to work, but either can't find jobs or don't have the necessary work permits. The city tries to help, but there just are not enough resources to go around. My local recreation center was closed for a while to help the immigrant influx.

I'm probably missing something, but that's my take on things around here and some of it is working. However, I still don't think the federal government has the right to tell localities how to handle things. It's a complicated situation, but there are common fixes that use money or housing give aways at the expense of the tax payer and may involve a loss of other services within local budgets. Who's to say how that should go? There are no doubt people who consider these functional remedies as a version of socialism.

---

Your friend’s experience matches mine when I helped out at shelter dinners 20 years ago. There are some homeless people who simply like the lifestyle and don’t want to be forced into a normalized living situation. Should we then allow those folks to camp in parks and other public places, resulting in filth and crime that renders those places useless for people who would otherwise use them. Such as a park??