The Oregon case decided Friday is the most significant to come before the high court in decades on the issue and comes as a rising number of people in the U.S. are without a permanent place to live.
It’s not as if these folks can just go off into the woods and build a cabin. There’s no where to go that isn’t owned or protected. You gotta sleep somewhere, it’s not a choice, people need to sleep.
Next is extermination camps
This is really interesting in contrast to where I live in Ontario, Canada. A municipality wanted an injunction to make it crystal clear they could evict a homeless encampment on municipal property. Instead, they got a judgement that doing so would violate those people’s Charter rights. This ruling means basically every municipality in the province now legally has to do something about the homelessness crisis.
My opinion has always been governmental spaces, especially those on or near the buildings lawmakers use, should always be an allowed campground for homeless people. They’re the ones most responsible for the problem, they should have to see it every time they go to work.
Same thing in BC… In the Prince George encapment case, it was ruled that unless there are enough shelter beds that are sufficiently accessible by the affected population, they are allowed to stay in the Lower Patricia encampment.
state’s rights is some fake ass bullshit
I’m going to misuse a couple of lines from Star Trek: The Next Generation, but I still think they work. Just imagine Q is all homeless people, and not evil, and Worf is SCOTUS:
Q: What do I have to do to convince you that I’m human?
Worf: Die.
Trying to decide if the war is on homelessness or on the homeless. 🤔
Literally? Both
Well, no, they aren’t fighting homelessness at all, that would mean trying to reduce, not to mention eliminate it.
Capitalists want homelessness, so that they have a whole under class of people to lock up and exploit, and that also serve as a warning to the rest of the working class.
The war is definitely against the homeless, not homelessness.
Why decide when you can just make it illegal to be homeless?
If we make it illegal to be homeless, everyone will have a home! It’s brilliant!
We have more empty homes than we do the homeless. If this country wanted a war on homelessness, it’d be over in a year. And that’s just the time it’d take to organize the moves. It isn’t even entirely correct to say this is a war on the homeless, either. It’s much broader than that and this conflict has been going on since time immemorial.
This is the class war and we’re losing.
Oh lord, this is the worst news to come from this week.
If sleeping anywhere for someone without a permanent place to live is allowed to be made illegal, we should have rotating shifts to keep the Court majority awake in their homes so that they will have to flee to Harlan Crow’s yacht.
Oh lord, this is the worst news to come from this week.
It was a high bar, but they cleared it.
Needless to say there was fierce competition. The pity I feel for Americans is to a level I feel physically sick.
As an American a couple months out from not being able to pay housing costs, I appreciate the empathy. Sorry about the cultural exports that have been going north.
In Star Trek, there were Sanctuary Districts to herd all the undesirables to in the 2020s.
In reality, we can’t even be bothered to do that.
That’s just another word for Ghetto
Here in LA, jerks are constantly suggesting “let’s build a huge structure in the desert and move 'em there”. They usually don’t know what Manzanar was.
And our answer is always no. The homeless are going to stay right here in everybody’s faces until we actually solve the problem. We aren’t willing to compromise on pushing them somewhere else.
There is no LA homelessness problem. There is a national homelessness problem and we’re dealing with it here because our Christian country won’t.
So Police patrol forcing homeless to drink strong coffee?
reminded me of
ID: comic showing a homeless person sleeping in a doorway when a cop comes and tells them it’s illegal to sleep in public. The homeless person replies saying they guess they’ll just go to a hotel tonight, or maybe their townhouse or the Hamptons, then make a mock call to “Smithers” saying their “super fun street sleeping holiday” is over and asking which mansion they should sleep in, as the cop thinks “next: outlaw sarcasm”
In true American fashion dating all the way back to its founding, you only matter if you own property.
Seems that way. Empowering local governments to determine legality will inevitably allow NIMBY to criminalize homelessness across the nation, with each city pointing fingers as the next.
you only matter if you own property.
While technically true… There is a difference between a guy owning a factory and a guy owning a home.
They are not the same lol
Yes. Homeless people are an underclass.
Many people are few pay checks away from being homeless
System works as intended
This is pedantic and totally irrelevant to the topic of homeless having no place to simply exist.
Unless of course you are trying to highlight the billions of unhoused factory owners?
Point being “home owner” is a temporaly housed person ;)
You got own right property to be part of the right class.
Learn to read
🙄
You’re not adding anything useful, insightful or relevant to the conversation. Just being pedantic so you can feel smug.
You can look at it like that…
My value add here is clarifying detail was that was lost in that statement.
I am not hurting the reader or the OP thesis, just adding to the body of work.
unhoused factory owners
Are you counting the fact that Elon lives in a trailer down by the
riverlaunchpad?
Can we get a class action lawsuit to sue for housing? Isn’t this almost entrapment like if the government doesn’t supply space for people to sleep but the population is still growing and the border isn’t completely sealed(not my solution I want) then shouldn’t the government be forced to build new homes or at least bunkhouses?
I’d think that for a blanket no-homelessness policy to be even reasonably humane, each person would need a right of address, even a 50 sqft. parcel of public land in/by the town of choosing which they can call their domicile.
If nothing else of there can’t be government funded housing then homesteading/camping outside of city limits and an advanced public transport system would be the only other option I can think of
They don’t have to pay their housing but they must make sure they have the ability to make it to a job so they can avoid being homeless
Could just show up to your town’s zoning board meetings and keep hammering them each and every time they turn down a residential permit application
How long until we get “government ran camps” to help us “solve” the homeless?
When will gen pop say it is enough ?
Asking for friend… History ain’t looking good folks.
Sometime between now and September, obviously.
The Bell Riots were supposed to result in things getting better. I don’t know that I see that happening in November regardless of who wins. It will either be worse or status quo.
I’m guessing the post-atomic horror of the pilot episode of TNG is more likely. I mean I guess both ended up happening, but the Bell Riots still apparently made things better.
Time to camp on SCOTUS lawns.
In case you ever need led hardproof that America is not a Christian Nation.
Feels pretty spot on for the Christians in the church I went to as a child
But the Church will help! Our doors are always open! With strings attached, of course.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
Overall, the dissent is good. But it makes 1 fundamental mistake of constitutional analysis:
The Constitution cannot be evaded by such formalistic distinctions
