With homelessness on the rise, the Supreme Court weighs bans on sleeping outdoors

[Stevicus]

With homelessness on the rise, the Supreme Court weighs bans on sleeping outdoors

The case is considered the most significant to come before the high court in decades on homelessness, which is reaching record levels in the United States.

apnews.com

The case started in the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which began fining people $295 for sleeping outside as the cost of housing escalated and tents sprung up in the city’s public parks. The San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law under its holding that banning camping in places without enough shelter beds amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

The justices appeared to be leaning toward a narrow ruling in the case after hearing arguments that showed the stark terms of the debate over homelessness in Western states like California, which is home to one-third of the country’s homeless population.

Sleeping is a biological necessity, and people may be forced to do it outside if they can’t get housing or there’s no space in shelters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

“Where do we put them if every city, every village, every town lacks compassion and passes a law identical to this? Where are they supposed to sleep? Are they supposed to kill themselves, not sleeping?” she said.

It's a valid question. If they can't afford housing, and if they're not allowed to sleep outside, where are they supposed to sleep?

Advocacy groups argue that such ordinances will criminalize homelessness and make the problem even worse.

The question is an urgent one in the West, where a cross-section of Democratic and Republican officials contend that the 9th Circuit’s rulings on camping bans make it difficult for them to manage encampments. The appeals court has jurisdiction over nine states in the West.

Advocacy groups, on the other hand, argued that allowing cities to punish people who need a place to sleep will criminalize homelessness and ultimately make the crisis worse as the cost of housing increases.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the Supreme Court Monday morning to advocate for more affordable housing, holding silver thermal blankets and signs like “housing not handcuffs.”

Homelessness in the United States grew a dramatic 12% last year to its highest reported level, as soaring rents and a decline in coronavirus pandemic assistance combined to put housing out of reach for more people.

More than 650,000 people are estimated to be homeless, the most since the country began using the yearly point-in-time survey in 2007. Nearly half of them sleep outside. Older adults, LGBTQ+ people and people of color are disproportionately affected, advocates said.

In Oregon, a lack of mental health and addiction resources has also helped fuel the crisis. The state has some of the highest rates of homelessness and drug addiction in the nation, and ranks near the bottom in access to treatment, federal data shows.

There are 16 million vacant homes in the U.S.: Vacant Homes vs. Homelessness In the U.S. - United Way NCA

The lawyer representing the city of Grants Pass said "This is a complicated policy question." I don't think it's all that complicated, although before I go into a long rant about this, I wanted to get other thoughts.

Thoughts?

 

[Spice]

I agree it's complicated, but I don't think it needs to be.

It's complicated because the possible solutions are not win-wins.

The abandoned housing -- if the codes could be relaxed so turning them into housing options would be doable for non-profits or other prospects with limited funds, it would help.

If state lands could be turned into tent-towns with limited outside interference, it would help.

But both of these simple options are complicated to make happen. We don't want relaxed codes to be used as a catalyst for an increase in slumlords. We don't want tent-towns to become fodder for gangs, etc.

The real issue to tackle is why many homeless choose to remain homeless. It's freedom, plain and simple. And that element is a huge percentage of the homeless population.

 

[F1fan]

With homelessness on the rise, the Supreme Court weighs bans on sleeping outdoors

The case is considered the most significant to come before the high court in decades on homelessness, which is reaching record levels in the United States.

apnews.com

It's a valid question. If they can't afford housing, and if they're not allowed to sleep outside, where are they supposed to sleep?

Is this just applicable inside city limits, or state wide?

What about people who hike and camp? Is that outlawed?

Advocacy groups argue that such ordinances will criminalize homelessness and make the problem even worse.

Oddly, if they fine he homeless who live outside, and fine them $295, and they can't pay, will they be arrested and jailed?

There are 16 million vacant homes in the U.S.: Vacant Homes vs. Homelessness In the U.S. - United Way NCA

The lawyer representing the city of Grants Pass said "This is a complicated policy question." I don't think it's all that complicated, although before I go into a long rant about this, I wanted to get other thoughts.

Thoughts?

So it could be that free citizens aren't allowed to sleep outside of a building?

 

[Stevicus]

I agree it's complicated, but I don't think it needs to be.

It's complicated because the possible solutions are not win-wins.

The abandoned housing -- if the codes could be relaxed so turning them into housing options would be doable for non-profits or other prospects with limited funds, it would help.

If state lands could be turned into tent-towns with limited outside interference, it would help.

But both of these simple options are complicated to make happen. We don't want relaxed codes to be used as a catalyst for an increase in slumlords. We don't want tent-towns to become fodder for gangs, etc.

The real issue to tackle is why many homeless choose to remain homeless. It's freedom, plain and simple. And that element is a huge percentage of the homeless population.

I've read about the Hoovervilles back during the Great Depression, but even that doesn't seem to be an option now.

I suppose if people choose to be homeless, that may be different, but they'd still have to sleep somewhere. I don't know how many people actually choose to be homeless.

I'm not really sure what a win-win solution would even look like. I suppose the government could appropriate some vacant properties and refurbish them for low-cost housing. Perhaps abandoned warehouses and office buildings could be converted into makeshift dormitories for the homeless.

 

[Stevicus]

Is this just applicable inside city limits, or state wide?

What about people who hike and camp? Is that outlawed?

In this case, it involves the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, although other cities have been passing similar ordinances and have taken harsher measures against homeless encampments. The ruling in this case could affect many communities across several states.

I think the laws on hiking and camping vary by jurisdiction, but these ordinances seem to apply mainly to settled areas - cities and towns, not out in the woods. But even then, depending on where it is, you might still be limited to only approved campsites. I doubt they would allow anyone to camp indefinitely either.

Oddly, if they fine he homeless who live outside, and fine them $295, and they can't pay, will they be arrested and jailed?

Yes, I was thinking about that possibility. There is some irony in that convicted criminals get three hots and a cot and free housing. Our society treats criminals better than the homeless.

So it could be that free citizens aren't allowed to sleep outside of a building?

I'm not sure if it's that specific, although they were referring to "public spaces" - sidewalks, alleys, public parks. If there are no public toilet facilities, that also entails some unfortunate and messy consequences as well. So, I can understand perfectly why people find this to be an undesirable situation for any community. But as with any issue affecting the health, safety, and well-being of the community, we need to come up with sensible answers.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's all incredibly disgusting.
How the 5% of the people, not to say the 2% owns most pieces of property in the US.
I think that us Christians have a God...who gives us answers.

 

[Estro Felino]

I agree it's complicated, but I don't think it needs to be.

It's complicated because the possible solutions are not win-wins.

The abandoned housing -- if the codes could be relaxed so turning them into housing options would be doable for non-profits or other prospects with limited funds, it would help.

If state lands could be turned into tent-towns with limited outside interference, it would help.

But both of these simple options are complicated to make happen. We don't want relaxed codes to be used as a catalyst for an increase in slumlords. We don't want tent-towns to become fodder for gangs, etc.

The real issue to tackle is why many homeless choose to remain homeless. It's freedom, plain and simple. And that element is a huge percentage of the homeless population.

Maybe you don't understand that the housing market is considered something profitable by avid speculators.
If they make housing affordable, these speculators cannot cash in on this kind of market.
Because it's basic microeconomics: something is profitable when the value of something is oversized.
And it's the law of the demand of the supply which make something expensive.
If there were too many pieces of property...the price would go down, and these avid speculators would gain much less money.

There are people who cannot breathe, unless they gain millions of dollars. They have a seizure.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Banning it doesn't solve their problems. But who cares about that?

 

[Stevicus]

Maybe you don't understand that the housing market is considered something profitable by avid speculators.
If they make housing affordable, these speculators cannot cash in on this kind of market.
Because it's basic microeconomics: something is profitable when the value of something is oversized.
And it's the law of the demand of the supply which make something expensive.
If there were too many pieces of property...the price would go down, and these avid speculators would gain much less money.

There are people who cannot breathe, unless they gain millions of dollars. They have a seizure.

The interesting thing to note is that there are 16 million vacant homes in the U.S., so it's not as if there's any true shortage of housing. I notice quite a few vacant lots and unused properties driving around my own city. I've often considered that a good way to put pressure on some of these speculators is to impose an unused/vacant property tax which would double each month a property remains vacant or unused.

 

[Revoltingest]

If they can't afford housing, and if they're not allowed to sleep outside, where are they supposed to sleep?

It's a dumb question.
Obviously, the homeless should buy a house.
Or stay in a hotel with room service.

 

[Secret Chief]

The real issue to tackle is why many homeless choose to remain homeless. It's freedom, plain and simple. And that element is a huge percentage of the homeless population.

Maybe in your country, not so the UK.

- Rising rents driving record homelessness among private tenants, Sky News analysis reveals

 

[Revoltingest]

The interesting thing to note is that there are 16 million vacant homes in the U.S., so it's not as if there's any true shortage of housing. I notice quite a few vacant lots and unused properties driving around my own city. I've often considered that a good way to put pressure on some of these speculators is to impose an unused/vacant property tax which would double each month a property remains vacant or unused.

Leave it to a socialist to find a cure that's worse than the problem.

How about things that would actually work?
- Loosen zoning regulations to allow more housing.
- Allow people to sleep in parks & other public property.
- Lower the cost of developing new housing.
- End confiscatory real estate transfer costs, & regulatory
burdens that inhibit sales.
- Expand the concept "public housing" to include RV parks,
which are much cheaper to build than apartment buildings.

These are all issues I've dealt with as a landlord, as one
assisting the homeless, & having even been briefly &
occasionally homeless.
BTW, the only problems I had when sleeping under
bridges (yes, I was a troll), in cars/trucks, & couch surfing
was to avoid attracting the interest of cops...being
homeless is often treated as a crime.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

With homelessness on the rise, the Supreme Court weighs bans on sleeping outdoors

The case is considered the most significant to come before the high court in decades on homelessness, which is reaching record levels in the United States.

apnews.com

It's a valid question. If they can't afford housing, and if they're not allowed to sleep outside, where are they supposed to sleep?

Advocacy groups argue that such ordinances will criminalize homelessness and make the problem even worse.





There are 16 million vacant homes in the U.S.: Vacant Homes vs. Homelessness In the U.S. - United Way NCA

The lawyer representing the city of Grants Pass said "This is a complicated policy question." I don't think it's all that complicated, although before I go into a long rant about this, I wanted to get other thoughts.

Thoughts?

A case like this came up here in Ontario last year. In our case, the Superior Court ruled that a city's attempt to evict a homeless encampment on public property when there weren't enough local shelter spaces to house all homeless people in the region was a violation of the Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/encampment-victoria-kitchener-region-waterloo-evict-1.6729433

I could see a similar ruling happening in the US.

What I'm interested to see when this plays out in the US is whether the people who raised a stink 6 to 8 years ago about people being entitled to use public land for free as they see fit also show up for this fight. I'm guessing they won't.

Bundy standoff - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stevicus]

Leave it to a socialist to find a cure that's worse than the problem.

Somehow, I knew you'd be chiming in to this thread. Please...don't ever change.

How about things that would actually work?
- Loosen zoning regulations to allow more housing.
- Allow people to sleep in parks & other public property.
- Lower the cost of developing new housing.
- End confiscatory real estate transfer costs, & regulatory
burdens that inhibit sales.
- Expand the concept "public housing" to include RV parks,
which are much cheaper to build than apartment buildings.

These are all issues I've dealt with as a landlord, as one
assisting the homeless, & having even been briefly &
occasionally homeless.
BTW, the only problems I had when sleeping under
bridges (yes, I was a troll), in cars/trucks, & couch surfing
was to avoid attracting the interest of cops...being
homeless is often treated as a crime.

One thing I would point out here is that the current dilemma has not been caused by socialists. Tell me: Why do you think an elected government in a capitalist society would impose these zoning regulations and confiscatory real estate transfer costs and other such impediments? They may be liberals, but also capitalists. Why do they do these things that seem to make capitalism worse?

 

[Estro Felino]

The interesting thing to note is that there are 16 million vacant homes in the U.S., so it's not as if there's any true shortage of housing. I notice quite a few vacant lots and unused properties driving around my own city. I've often considered that a good way to put pressure on some of these speculators is to impose an unused/vacant property tax which would double each month a property remains vacant or unused.

You can't even imagine how many abandoned buildings and how many abandoned houses there are in my country.
We are speaking of buildings which are already there which need very little restoration to be habitable.
The State used to restore so many building in the past, before the age of Eurocracy arrived in Europe.

 

[Kfox]

The interesting thing to note is that there are 16 million vacant homes in the U.S., so it's not as if there's any true shortage of housing. I notice quite a few vacant lots and unused properties driving around my own city. I've often considered that a good way to put pressure on some of these speculators is to impose an unused/vacant property tax which would double each month a property remains vacant or unused.

What's that supposed to accomplish? It will simply cause less houses to be sold, which would cause the construction industry to build less housing because the industry attempts to make sure the same amount of inventory is available regardless of how many houses sold; so getting rid of snow birds, landlords, or others who own more than one house for one reason or another will not increase inventory

 

[Stevicus]

What's that supposed to accomplish? It will simply cause less houses to be sold, which would cause the construction industry to build less housing because the industry attempts to make sure the same amount of inventory is available regardless of how many houses sold; so getting rid of snow birds, landlords, or others who own more than one house for one reason or another will not increase inventory

I would suggest it would put downward pressure on the overall cost of housing. I don't know if I would consider snowbirds' houses to be truly "vacant." I was thinking more of absentee landlord situations, vacant lots, abandoned housing, empty warehouses. Or, even in other cases, such as the case of the squatters in a Beverly Hills mansion that the authorities are powerless to deal with.

I don't see it as a need to increase inventory, but finding more efficient ways of utilizing the inventory already on hand.

 

[Stevicus]

You can't even imagine how many abandoned buildings and how many abandoned houses there are in my country.
We are speaking of buildings which are already there which need very little restoration to be habitable.
The State used to restore so many building in the past, before the age of Eurocracy arrived in Europe.

There's quite a bit of abandoned housing here, too, as well as stores, boarded up shopping centers, etc.

I recall many years ago, I was talking with someone from NYC, and he told me that part of the reason property is so expensive there is because of the prevalence of organized crime operating behind the scenes. He called it a "mafia tax."

 

[Estro Felino]

There's quite a bit of abandoned housing here, too, as well as stores, boarded up shopping centers, etc.

I recall many years ago, I was talking with someone from NYC, and he told me that part of the reason property is so expensive there is because of the prevalence of organized crime operating behind the scenes. He called it a "mafia tax."

Of course. That's their privileged business.

 

[Quintessence]

Everything about this case makes my skin crawl.

The human species has slept outdoors for the vast majority of its evolutionary history.

If civilization cannot handle something that is so basic and fundamentally human, it needs to step aside.