The right sure loves punching down. Just like the Bible tells us to do.
It was mostly blue states arresting and making homelessness illegal.
Source please.
I don’t know about elsewhere, but they’ve been doing it in California for a while now.
Edit: there have been camping bans that have been passed since 2016 in various cities and towns all over California. These bans specifically targeted the homeless, and the thugs in our police departments have been using them as an excuse to steal all their property, throw it into a garbage truck, including their IDs and other personal documents. Then they ticket them, and when they can’t pay the ticket they go to jail.
Ah, your source is just your precious fee fees.
Classic boomer move right there.
In San Diego they passed a camping ban last year, I’ve been protesting it since then. The Union Tribune probably.has some news stories, but they absolutely have been doing it, and I don’t have a subscription.
But is it mostly blue states?
I recognize that blue states do occasionally pass anti homeless laws.
But are mostly blue states passing anti homeless laws?
No clue. I have been focused on California since 2016. In my experience it is easier to enact local change, to influence state level changes, and later federal changes. I’m not really focusing on anything but my local city council meetings, and the various elections, especially judges, city council, and school board. Other than that I pay attention to my representatives / assemblymen, and senators at both the state and federal level. I do pay some attention to the presidential race, but as a leftist I have to hold my nose and vote for the milquetoast democratic candidate every single time for the last 5 presidential elections, and probably the 6th time in my life in November. Not one presidential candidate that I voted for in the primaries has ever gotten the nomination.
The case in question, namely Grant’s Pass vs Johnson, originated in an Oregon town. Another blue state.
TBH I wouldn’t be at all surprised if most of these recent laws come from Washington, California, and Oregon. They have the worst homelessness problems, and that’s partially due to the fact that all three states have historically had robust social safety nets, so it was safer to be homeless on the west coast.
Generally CA does not fuck with the homeless as far as I know, but there was one very obvious and glaring exception:
https://www.newsweek.com/gavin-newsom-slammed-cleaning-san-francisco-1843412
San Diego has also passed a camping ban and has been violently clearing homeless camps
Demanding sources for information that is readily available is lazy. It’s it’s filled with arrogant hubris
Making factual statements that aren’t common knowledge to support a position you didn’t declare is also lazy.
Information that’s conveniently ignored doesn’t make it uncommon. States all across the country, most of them blue, have criminalized homelessness.
Almost every state has some form of law outlawing homelessness. https://homelesslaw.org/first-national-study-of-state-laws-criminalizing-homelessness-released/ The USA is a diverse place and homelessness affects different areas differently. If we want to make homelessness a crime we need to be sure to also provide a method to grandfather in or help those who are currently homeless.
Judge a society by how it treats its weakest members. And judge hard.
Yes, I’m sure some of those judges are hard right now
I know I should be used to it by now but it shocks me that there are likely millions of christian conservatives who would yell at you for this, even though this sentiment is literally echoed exactly by Jesus.
And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
That verse swings both ways. God isn’t counting all your good deeds for the ‘least of my brothers’, but none of your transgressions against them.
Conservative (and let’s be real, also neoliberal) Christians hate that verse. There are so few places in the NT where Jesus explicitly says “you will go to hell for this,” and that’s one of them. They get extremely uncomfortable if you make them think about how they believe they will one day have to stand in front of God and explain why they ignored this verse.
So naturally I advocate bringing it up to them as much as possible. There actually are a lot of deeply Christian people who are disturbed by the dissonance there, and for the most part the messaging just isn’t happening. Like, what is the biggest Jesus advertisement campaign right now? Probably the
Protestant Buddy Jesus“He gets us” campaign, which doesn’t really say much of anything.
So then where are people supposed to sleep when nothing else is available, how can it possibly be a crime to give yourself shelter and sleep?
It is now illegal to sleep while homeless
Legally? Prison.
So poverty leads to slavery via the 13th amendment.
That’s dark.
I can’t believe the billionaires aren’t yet worried about their safety. This environment is the stuff of revolutions.
There’s also death. Don’t forget about death.
Guess we’re about to find out what happens when you take 600,000 economically disparaged people and temporarily lock them up in an understaffed for profit penal institution that is currently in the middle of historically low classes of recruits. Im sure this will make everyone involved a better person.
A crime wave they can blame on democrats?
Slavery 2.0
deleted by creator
What was that thing Jesus said? Do unto others?.. the greatest commandment is to love one… give all your possessions and follow… something something… the least among you… snaps fingers Hate gay people! That’s what I’m supposed to do! Control women’s medical choices, and make sure gay people have no rights. of course!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It comes as cities nationwide grapple with a spike in the number of people without access to shelter, driven in part by high housing costs and the end of aid programs launched in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The ruling is likely to clear the way for state and local officials to mete out civil punishments in an effort to curtail homeless encampments, which have spread throughout the West as a result of a federal appeals court decision in the case involving anti-camping ordinances from Grants Pass, Oregon.
A number of state and local leaders across party lines have defended camping bans as necessary for protecting public health and safety, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found laws imposing civil penalties on homeless people for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court reversed that decision, concluding that the enforcement of laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
In 2013, local officials decided to ramp up enforcement of ordinances that prohibit sleeping or camping on public property or in city parks.
A divided panel of three judges on the 9th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision, finding that Grants Pass couldn’t enforce its anti-camping ordinances against homeless people merely for sleeping outside with protection from the elements when they have nowhere else in the city to go.
The original article contains 678 words, the summary contains 237 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The Supreme Court is out of control. No one should have this much power.
Living in Portland and seeing the Mayor a couple of days ago announce he was enforcing the camping ban starting on Monday, I pretty much expected this.
Frankly it’s overdue. The people who want to argue “what about human dignity??!?!?” are ignoring the realities of the situation:
The government isn’t ignoring human dignity, the campers already beat them to it.
And how does charging a homeless person $300 for falling asleep outside with a blanket fix any of that?
It’s not charging a homeless person for falling asleep outside.
It’s offering them shelter space and charging them when they refuse.
“Hey, let’s help get you into a shelter…”
“Fuck you! I won’t do what you tell me!”
Which, unfortunately, is all too common.
https://apnews.com/article/portland-oregon-homeless-camping-rules-419270cc3c36417789affb2b05df4da0
“Those who accept offers of shelter won’t be cited, according to Wheeler’s office. For those who are cited, the courts will determine whether to waive fines. The ordinance says it encourages diverting people to assessment, emergency shelter or housing instead of jail.”
The article and ruling isn’t about Portland, it’s about Grants Pass.
At the center of the case is Grants Pass, a city of roughly 40,000 in southern Oregon with ordinances that bar camping or sleeping on public property or in city parks. The city’s rules define “campsite” as “any place where bedding, sleeping bag, or other material used for bedding purposes, or any stove or fire is placed.”
As far as I can find their ordinance has no such exceptions.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, it’s no longer Grants Pass, each municipality can set their own rules and in Oregon, it’s already been decided at the State level.
https://www.orcities.org/resources/reference/homeless-solutions/homelessness-public-space
"HB 3115 requires that any city or county law regulating the acts of sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry outside on public property must be “objectively reasonable” based on the totality of the circumstances as applied to all stakeholders, including persons experiencing homelessness. What is objectively reasonable may look different in different communities.
The bill retains cities’ ability to enact reasonable time, place and manner regulations, aiming to preserve the ability of cities to manage public spaces effectively for the benefit of an entire community."
You seem to be overlooking that SCOTUS specifically ruled that it is constitutional to charge homeless people $300 for falling asleep outside with a blanket, which is what the thread was about.
I get it, what I’m saying is Oregon passed HB 3115 in response to policies like those in Grants Pass.
So even though the Supreme Court is allowing it, State Law supercedes it.
That doesn’t really do much for the other 49 states + DC or say anything meaningful about the decision itself.
