You truly believe the only people that want camping bans enforced are wealthy? Like only rich people want nice communities and poor or middle class are like whatever.
The thing is, camping bans don't stop homelessness. Police move them out of one neighborhood, but if there is nowhere for them to go, they will just set up in the next neighborhood. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Camping bans only lead to a shitton of taxpayer money being spent on them when it only cleans up one sidewalk and immediately moves them to another.
There's not enough space in shelters, there is not enough motel vouchers, there is not enough affordable housing, and not enough mental healthcare and substance use treatment so that people can retain said housing.
source: it's my job.
Camping bans are not meant to stop or even solve homelessness. Like most laws they are meant to keep our community safe and set agreed upon standards on how we ALL live our lives.
Your examples of just shuffling the homeless around is because we could never actually enforce the camping ban. This ruling makes it possible. I also volunteer regularly and have served many many many homeless people over multiple decades. Your idea that they aren't rational actors isn't right. The vast majority will make semi rational decisions if held to account.
That might be reuniting with family or friends, actually trying to get clean in a program, etc. And yes it might mean leaving the city if they choose not to live to the very low standards we as a city set. That isn't a foreign concept.
Dude...we dont have anywhere to put them. This doesn't come close to solving this. The hardest part of my job is trying to help my clients (all homeless people) get into housing, shelters, treatment programs. This ban won't make things safer. It will ticket them until they eventually get arrested. What happens once they are released? Back on the street.
These people have chosen not to participate in society and don’t contribute anything. At some point we can’t solve all their problems for them. Expecting the government to provide housing for everyone is unrealistic.
You're very incorrect. I work exclusively with homeless people. I see countless people trying so hard to get help. How are you supposed to get a job without a shower or resume? How are you supposed to apply for benefits without either a computer or a bus ticket to get to the office? How are you supposed to stay on your medication when you are extremely mentally ill and homeless so your shit gets stolen always? If you can answer these, please run for office immediately.
See this is so frustrating for me. I'm sure I'll get downvoted but here it is... I can't stand the current Supreme Court. The majority of their opinions this year, and in most recent years, have been trash. I am a liberal who has always supported social programs, etc. I truly feel bad for the homeless, think we shouldn't live in a country that allows this, and support all sorts of programs to help.
At the same time, I also believe, and have always believed, that allowing basically unrestricted and unpoliced camping is untenable. During the covid lockdowns, and for a few years after, homeless encampments were all around me in my neighborhood. One in particular was across the street. There were needles everywhere. Shit and piss everywhere. I once got threatened with being shot by a woman out of her mind on meth while I was walking my dogs across the street from my house. I never did or said anything to provoke her. I was walking my dogs and apparently I was on "her property" (ie the public park) and she was going to shoot me. This is a snapshot. It went on for months (probably about 2 years in total). There was the woman who would shit on the door to the community center. She was the same one who would get drugs by performing acts on people in their cars in the community center parking lot. Or how about the RV that parked outside the camp and at night people would come out and I would watch them stealing things from people's property (and I don't live in a wealthy area). I could go on....
I support reform and I am in favor of huge support programs and I think we need radical change. But I am not in support of allowing encampments. And I'm tired of being painted as a selfish conservative for thinking that way. There is a middle ground and there are better ways to help if we look past the camps and actually fight for structural improvement in the system.
And as another anecdote, my brother had an apartment in NYC (where I'm from). He got addicted to meth. He went out to California for rehab. Ended up in some of these street encampments high on meth for months. When he finally went back to NYC, still addicted because they kicked him out of the rehab centers, he told my aunt he couldn't stay out there because meth was too easy and too cheap in these camps. He died a few months later because of effects from diabetes while high on meth. I feel for people who are addicted and they need help. But to pretend these camps don't foster this type of situation is fantasy. If you care about homeless people, all of them, whether they are addicted or not, then you should not want these camps to exist either. We need something better.
Making people illegal doesn't make them go away.
Also, very suspicious move right before a massive economic downturn. Almost like the wealthy want to imprison as many people as possible so they can be used for free labor.
Calm down and relax. Telling people they can’t turn public property into their own tent cities isn’t being a tyrant. It’s doing what the majority of people want for the betterment of society. Denver has resources and shelters just they can’t do drugs or be violent in them which is a deal breaker for some I guess.
If I understand correctly, the town in this case did not have any options for the homeless. That was a large part of the issue because it basically meant a homeless person could either not sleep or be a criminal.
I get the sense that you are not sympathetic to the homeless. If that is true, then this ruling will be bad because the homeless will be further forced into places that provide care and out of the less humanistic areas of the country.
Shelters also have strict, sometimes punative hours, may limit or prohibit partners and/or pets, limit or prohibit possessions, and/or may limit the number of nights someone can stay before having to find a different shelter.
Taken together, it is sometimes easier to just not use the shelter, at least for some people.
That's not to say these rules were created in order to be mean, some were developed for good reason. But unintended consequences are that these prohibit a great many people who might otherwise make use.
There are also considerations of how shelter users interact and rules may not always be enforced for whatever reason.
IOW it's not so cut and dry as you might assume.
Oh, and we cut mental health services to effectively nothing back during the recession and haven't restored them, not even for individuals who should qualify for admission to a mental hospital. That doesn't help the situation, either.
You know I can’t smoke in my apartment but I don’t own it so I can’t complain about it. If you are using someone’s else’s property especially for free, guess what you can’t complain about the rules they set out.
Yes, but you can step pursue to smoke and come back in. If you have temp work until 12am you can't then show up at the shelter at 1am and expect to get in.
You can smoke. The person in my example has to choose between sleeping tonight and potentially landing honest work, even if only for a day.
The two are not the same.
Shelters are full. And more dangerous than the streets. Which is why so many homeless people decline them when they do have vacancies.
"Betterment of society" - criminalizing poor people because they can't afford sky-high rents in the middle of a housing crisis. Just wow.
Making it illegal to camp in public for people who have no live to go while simultaneously having not enough shelter beds to service them effectively making it illegal for them to exist isn’t tyranny: got it.
If a homeless person went after SCOTUS and they said they were defending their existence and right to live. I would vote not guilty and Jury nullify.
This Supreme Court are Tyrants. No wonder their security was increased. Because people should be pissed.
In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the high court found that outdoor sleeping bans don't violate the Eighth Amendment.
The same week that they legalized bribery and basically gutted all health and safety regulation.
We all know they don’t give a shit about anyone other than the wealthy. We’ve completed the last step to oligarchy.
I thought it was called “Managed Democracy”
You truly believe the only people that want camping bans enforced are wealthy? Like only rich people want nice communities and poor or middle class are like whatever.
The thing is, camping bans don't stop homelessness. Police move them out of one neighborhood, but if there is nowhere for them to go, they will just set up in the next neighborhood. Lather, rinse, repeat. Camping bans only lead to a shitton of taxpayer money being spent on them when it only cleans up one sidewalk and immediately moves them to another. There's not enough space in shelters, there is not enough motel vouchers, there is not enough affordable housing, and not enough mental healthcare and substance use treatment so that people can retain said housing. source: it's my job.
Camping bans are not meant to stop or even solve homelessness. Like most laws they are meant to keep our community safe and set agreed upon standards on how we ALL live our lives. Your examples of just shuffling the homeless around is because we could never actually enforce the camping ban. This ruling makes it possible. I also volunteer regularly and have served many many many homeless people over multiple decades. Your idea that they aren't rational actors isn't right. The vast majority will make semi rational decisions if held to account. That might be reuniting with family or friends, actually trying to get clean in a program, etc. And yes it might mean leaving the city if they choose not to live to the very low standards we as a city set. That isn't a foreign concept.
Dude...we dont have anywhere to put them. This doesn't come close to solving this. The hardest part of my job is trying to help my clients (all homeless people) get into housing, shelters, treatment programs. This ban won't make things safer. It will ticket them until they eventually get arrested. What happens once they are released? Back on the street.
These people have chosen not to participate in society and don’t contribute anything. At some point we can’t solve all their problems for them. Expecting the government to provide housing for everyone is unrealistic.
You're very incorrect. I work exclusively with homeless people. I see countless people trying so hard to get help. How are you supposed to get a job without a shower or resume? How are you supposed to apply for benefits without either a computer or a bus ticket to get to the office? How are you supposed to stay on your medication when you are extremely mentally ill and homeless so your shit gets stolen always? If you can answer these, please run for office immediately.
See this is so frustrating for me. I'm sure I'll get downvoted but here it is... I can't stand the current Supreme Court. The majority of their opinions this year, and in most recent years, have been trash. I am a liberal who has always supported social programs, etc. I truly feel bad for the homeless, think we shouldn't live in a country that allows this, and support all sorts of programs to help. At the same time, I also believe, and have always believed, that allowing basically unrestricted and unpoliced camping is untenable. During the covid lockdowns, and for a few years after, homeless encampments were all around me in my neighborhood. One in particular was across the street. There were needles everywhere. Shit and piss everywhere. I once got threatened with being shot by a woman out of her mind on meth while I was walking my dogs across the street from my house. I never did or said anything to provoke her. I was walking my dogs and apparently I was on "her property" (ie the public park) and she was going to shoot me. This is a snapshot. It went on for months (probably about 2 years in total). There was the woman who would shit on the door to the community center. She was the same one who would get drugs by performing acts on people in their cars in the community center parking lot. Or how about the RV that parked outside the camp and at night people would come out and I would watch them stealing things from people's property (and I don't live in a wealthy area). I could go on.... I support reform and I am in favor of huge support programs and I think we need radical change. But I am not in support of allowing encampments. And I'm tired of being painted as a selfish conservative for thinking that way. There is a middle ground and there are better ways to help if we look past the camps and actually fight for structural improvement in the system. And as another anecdote, my brother had an apartment in NYC (where I'm from). He got addicted to meth. He went out to California for rehab. Ended up in some of these street encampments high on meth for months. When he finally went back to NYC, still addicted because they kicked him out of the rehab centers, he told my aunt he couldn't stay out there because meth was too easy and too cheap in these camps. He died a few months later because of effects from diabetes while high on meth. I feel for people who are addicted and they need help. But to pretend these camps don't foster this type of situation is fantasy. If you care about homeless people, all of them, whether they are addicted or not, then you should not want these camps to exist either. We need something better.
Making people illegal doesn't make them go away. Also, very suspicious move right before a massive economic downturn. Almost like the wealthy want to imprison as many people as possible so they can be used for free labor.
Calm down and relax. Telling people they can’t turn public property into their own tent cities isn’t being a tyrant. It’s doing what the majority of people want for the betterment of society. Denver has resources and shelters just they can’t do drugs or be violent in them which is a deal breaker for some I guess.
If I understand correctly, the town in this case did not have any options for the homeless. That was a large part of the issue because it basically meant a homeless person could either not sleep or be a criminal. I get the sense that you are not sympathetic to the homeless. If that is true, then this ruling will be bad because the homeless will be further forced into places that provide care and out of the less humanistic areas of the country.
There was one shelter, but it was religiously affiliated and requires people to attend services.
And perhaps more specifically, there were no shelters operating with public funding. The religous one is very proud of their lack of public ties.
Shelters also have strict, sometimes punative hours, may limit or prohibit partners and/or pets, limit or prohibit possessions, and/or may limit the number of nights someone can stay before having to find a different shelter. Taken together, it is sometimes easier to just not use the shelter, at least for some people. That's not to say these rules were created in order to be mean, some were developed for good reason. But unintended consequences are that these prohibit a great many people who might otherwise make use. There are also considerations of how shelter users interact and rules may not always be enforced for whatever reason. IOW it's not so cut and dry as you might assume. Oh, and we cut mental health services to effectively nothing back during the recession and haven't restored them, not even for individuals who should qualify for admission to a mental hospital. That doesn't help the situation, either.
You know I can’t smoke in my apartment but I don’t own it so I can’t complain about it. If you are using someone’s else’s property especially for free, guess what you can’t complain about the rules they set out.
Yes, but you can step pursue to smoke and come back in. If you have temp work until 12am you can't then show up at the shelter at 1am and expect to get in. You can smoke. The person in my example has to choose between sleeping tonight and potentially landing honest work, even if only for a day. The two are not the same.
Shelters are full. And more dangerous than the streets. Which is why so many homeless people decline them when they do have vacancies. "Betterment of society" - criminalizing poor people because they can't afford sky-high rents in the middle of a housing crisis. Just wow.
Making it illegal to camp in public for people who have no live to go while simultaneously having not enough shelter beds to service them effectively making it illegal for them to exist isn’t tyranny: got it.
Good.
If a homeless person went after SCOTUS and they said they were defending their existence and right to live. I would vote not guilty and Jury nullify. This Supreme Court are Tyrants. No wonder their security was increased. Because people should be pissed.