this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
232 points (99.2% liked)

News

23627 readers
2364 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
232
How far can cities go to clear homeless camps? The U.S. Supreme Court will decide (wamu.org)
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
66 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a major case that could reshape how cities manage homelessness. The legal issue is whether they can fine or arrest people for sleeping outside if there’s no shelter available. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has deemed this cruel and unusual punishment, and this case is a pivotal challenge to that ruling.

The high court declined to take up a similar case in 2019. But since then, homelessness rates have climbed relentlessly. Street encampments have grown larger and have expanded to new places, igniting intense backlash from residents and businesses. Homelessness and the lack of affordable housing that’s helping to drive it have become key issues for many voters.

The case, Grants Pass v. Johnson, could have dramatic implications for the record number of people living in tents and cars across the United States.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 74 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Oh good. With this SCOTUS, I assume they'll declare it open hunting season on homeless people.

I fucking hate it. I mean read this shit-

The legal issue is whether they can fine or arrest people for sleeping outside if there’s no shelter available.

FINE people who can't even afford a home when they have NO CHOICE but to sleep outside. And this even reaches SCOTUS? It wasn't immediately laughed out of court? Not in America.

I live some distance out of town near a highway. I have to drive over a small bridge to get into town. The bridge is still not in town, there's farm fields next to it. But there's a sign next to the bridge, in English and Spanish, that says 'no trespassing.' To be clear, this isn't some person putting it on their land, this is an official county government sign. And yes, before the sign went up, people were sleeping under there.

These people have nowhere to go. You can't even argue that they're wanted as bodies for the industrial prison system, because they usually aren't arrested, just chased off. And apparently given fines they can't afford now.

I honestly have no idea what cities and counties expect these people to do.

[–] Stamets@lemmy.world 65 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I honestly have no idea what cities and counties expect these people to do.

Die.

They expect us to die.

I spent half of my 20s homeless in Canada and was outright told by a cop that he would have preferred to come deal with my dead body. "Why don't you kill yourself? Make my life a lot easier so I wouldn't have to come and tell your lazy ass to move and get a fucking job. Get out of here. If I see you back here again then my boots won't and might walk into you."

Most cops were spiteful and vindictive but wouldn't outright say anything like he did. Most of the time I would ask for help. Like where should I go? Always afraid. Always nervous. I didn't want to be homeless. I was terrified. I wanted to be okay again. But everytime I asked for help they would shrug and say "That's not my job." Meanwhile the people whose job it would be? They're not funded.

They just want us to die.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I can absolutely believe that, but driving people out of wherever they settle isn't going to achieve that either. It seems like they think as long as they treat homeless people like shit, the problem will solve itself, despite that having been shown to be demonstrably untrue for, oh, I don't know... centuries?

[–] Stamets@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago (2 children)

They just don't care. As far as they're concerned the problem cannot be solved. If it's existed for centuries then it's because it doesn't have an answer, right? They're looking for the cheapest solution at this point because they "know" they'll have to do it forever anyway so find the most cost effective solution.

There are two.

The first is to get them out of your city. Typically this is just done with a bus ticket. Relatively cheap but a lot get sent back or there ends up being problems with the other towns.

The second is to kill them. There's no one to pay out the money to most of the time and the cost of a paupers grave is considerably cheaper than housing or prison.

It's just purely financial. To people making these decisions, our lives are not worth the financial cost of sustaining them. It's considered a drain on resources. It's a complete depersonalization which is accepted by most of society because most of society depersonalize homeless people themselves either out of fear of unwarranted and random attack (which is rare as FUCK) or because it's a reminder that their own lives could go very badly. Then there's the propaganda people buy into and say that they either put themselves in this position with drugs or are dangerous.

To the vast majority of society we are not even considered human beings. To businesses and the government we aren't considered human beings. We're just a statistic.

[–] Evkob@lemmy.ca 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

To the vast majority of society we are not even considered human beings. To businesses and the government we aren’t considered human beings. We’re just a statistic.

I read the news a lot, especially local news. My city has seen unprecedented levels of homelessness in the past few years.

Who does the local media interview the most about this? Homeless people? Non-profits organizations trying to help despite lack of resources? Homeless shelters? Addiction services?

Nope; the local chamber of commerce. The focus is always on "oh no the poor people are affecting our businesses!" and never on the people literally dying on our streets. It's disgusting.

[–] Stamets@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Who does the local media interview the most about this? Homeless people? Non-profits organizations trying to help despite lack of resources? Homeless shelters? Addiction services? Nope; the local chamber of commerce.

This is the most telling part of what I said in that we aren't considered people. The News reporting on it affecting everyone other than the people it affects because the news is for people, not for disgusting animals. Unless you can water ski and are a dog.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

"Let's cut some taxes for us to help us keep our businesses running."

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

The whole thing just makes me sick. And these people also claim to love Jesus, of course. It's amazed there are any Christians left after observing century after century of hypocrisy.

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

Or they want to arrest them to increased the slave population.

[–] thragtacular@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

That's what a baseball bat and dumpster are for.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There are a bunch of common sense principles that you'd think would be obvious to anyone but apparently aren't reflected in any laws. One of those principles is that nobody should ever be penalized for something beyond their control.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

They would just find some way to claim that it wasn't beyond their control because they didn't pull themselves up by their bootstraps or whatever.

It wouldn't totally solve homelessness, but it would go a big way towards it if we offered housing, a UBI, and medical, rehab and psychological care free of charge. But this is America.

[–] Cosmocrat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 months ago (11 children)

I feel conflicted, I have been noticing a homeless camp growing very close to my neighborhood and they are absolutely trashing the area, letting their dogs run loose in the streets. I want to sympathize with them but they harbor no respect for themselves or their environment.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 8 points 10 months ago

You're surprised that people with no food, no shelter, no stability in life have poor manners? You're surprised they don't respect the society that has made them homeless and criminalized them for it?

I'm confused here. You understand this is why the left wants to give them homes food and stability, because people who lack those things are going to destroy themselves and everything around them. People who HAVE those things can often become contributing members of society in a few years.

They don't have to EARN shelter and food, we give it to them because it helps US AND THEM. It's cheaper and more ethical. Our current system pays extra to torture the homeless because people like you are "conflicted" and expect the homeless to behave themselves before we help them.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 55 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Yes, charging them money for the crime of not having enough money should solve the issue! Then we can pay to house them in prison instead of paying to house them in housing where they might have gotten a job.

[–] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 28 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Oh, they’ll have a job in prison, too. They just won’t get paid to do it.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They get paid for it but it's like 13¢ an hour.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Slavery is always the goal.

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)

None of this is an accident. This is literally war against poor people.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

More prisoners = more slave labor.

[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 27 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Instead of fines or arrests, how about accommodation?

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago

"House the homeless? I'd much rather my tax money go to buying tanks for the police." - Average NIMBY

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

But that would cost rich people money. Can’t have that.

I mean you don’t get rich without exploiting people. You don’t get rich being morally responsible.

This is literally a war. It’s rich vs poor.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

I’m no expert, but making it illegal doesn’t seem like a solution to homelessness.

Except of course they aren’t looking for a solution. That’d explain a lot.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 20 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This is going to end up with crucifixion being legalized.

[–] CluckN@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

They should legalize crucifixion but only for people who don’t return the shopping trolley.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BlackNo1@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (4 children)

OH MY FUCKING GOD HOUSE THEM

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] apendleton@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Bell Riots, here we come.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

I am curious how they will rule. On one hand the Catholics are going to be told to not go after the homeless on the other hand Alito and Clarence are going to get a donation from the Chamber of Commerce.

[–] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

It's not a war against homelessness. It's a war against the homeless.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oh the supreme Court? So flamethrowers?

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

But powered by oil made from ~~human~~ homeless fatty tissues.

So a biofuel, is good for you. Unless you look at your landlord funny, then it's a bit harmful to you.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

It's the new BEFNG ones, you're fine. Unless you're at the other end

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 10 points 10 months ago

Supreme Court about to legalize homeless hunting licenses.

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Hunting them down for sport wins 6 votes against 3

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The “problem” has gotten worse and is not just in the big cities. It is going on everywhere. A lot of these people just want their freedom to “be”. Most of the cities just want them to leave. If you offer them services, they will have to want them or at least follow the minimum rules at a facility (like be sober) to stay there. Some just aren’t going to do it. Period. I speak as a recovering alcoholic and know this to be true. I don’t think municipalities want them dead, they just want them to be somewhere else. Do they have the right to push them out? Will be an interesting case to follow.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

There is no "somewhere else" for them to go to, just a bunch of other places where people don't want them either. Seems like everywhere in America just wants to shuffle homeless people around without doing much (or often anything) to actually solve the problem.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

There's nothing a city can realistically do except shuffle them around - providing assistance simply motivates more homeless people to arrive from other places until the assistance is exhausted and the city is left worse off, with less money and more homeless people.

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What do you suggest?

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Not criminalizing homelessness for starters.

The actual solution is to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place, but that would be "socialism" and therefore too unpopular to actually implement. But housing-first solutions seem to work great every time they're tried.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

At a certain point it's the same thing. When the government makes it that hard to live, it's just going you die and solve the problem for them. Disability is the same way.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

... so it's the USA supreme court that comes up with Soylent Green recipe?

Actually kinda makes sense.

[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

How far? Like housing them and treating their physical and mental health issues? Legalizing drugs so that we don't criminalize addiction? Can you really go to far too help people in need?

load more comments
view more: next ›