If I was homeless and sleeping outside in a blanket and you came along and gave me a $295 ticket for sleeping outside in a blanket I'd just laugh at you and tell you I hope you feel better about yourself now. #2 | Posted by donnerboy

Sure, but the case also notes possible jail sentences. And the ruling allows cities to clear these encampments, which they previously could not.

If they have nowhere to go they just find somewhere else to sleep or come back after you are gone.
It's obviously not a permanent solution to anything. #5 | Posted by donnerboy

Making them go elsewhere is the plan. And if they come back, they go to jail. Which may be OK by some, but many of these folks treasure their freedom (to drink, get high, act nuts w/o ramification, etc.).

Criminalizing being poor, which is what this decision will doubtlessly lead to, should be seen as a crime against humanity. Anyone who supports this is morally bankrupt. #6 | Posted by qcp

You're welcome to let a bunch of junkies live on the streets of your city if you want. No one is stopping you from rolling out the welcome mat.

Some of you folks here have never hit on hard times and it shows in your disgustingly privileged attitudes. #10 | Posted by qcp

And some of you folks have never dealt with homeless junkies day in and day out harassing others, shooting up and smoking drugs on public transportation, and taking over public spaces, including parks and sidewalks, while expecting everyone else who works for a living to subsidize and enable their poor life choices.

Instead of, you know, providing them with resources and housing [...] #15 | Posted by truthhurts

Don't bother with censored, they are a troll with a complete lack of morality and common decency. Plonk the account and go about your day without having to read the poison it spews. You'll thank yourself for doing it. #19 | Posted by qcp

Plonk me daddy. Plonk me harder! Plonk me faster!

being homeless is "consequence free"? come on....let's get real. We WILL keep shoveling resources at this problem because it isn't going anywhere and this ruling doesn't change that. It's still a problem cities have to deal with. And compassion and empathy will [be] part of it........ #24 | Posted by eberly

The consequence I was referring to was their belief that they can live on the streets if they so choose and society can't do anything about it.

Sometimes people need encouragement; addicts would be an example of those who need some "stick" to go along with "carrot" to change their ways.

But communities can go for the Kensington, Philadelphia look if they so choose.

Are you going to pretend a city doesn't listen to it's more successful tax payers, employers, law enforcement, and voters? Any decent city NEEDS all of those folks.
#30 | Posted by eberly

Multiple Democratic states and cities supported this decision. Even the Democratic mayor of SF and governor of California were celebrating the ruling.

And then there are people like QCP and TruthHurts acting like anyone who approves are inhumane monsters.

They should brace themselves for when the polls come out. My guess is that they will show 20 or 25 percent more of the public support this ruling than the 57% that disapproved of this SCOTUS setting aside Roe.

Of course they do. They have rooves over their heads. They got theirs. Screw everyone that doesn't. #32 | Posted by LauraMohr

You act like those roofs dropped out of the sky and no one had to work to earn it. Meanwhile we have millions sneaking into this country a year illegally for the opportunity to work. I too would like to shoot up with drugs every day, hang out, drain societal resources, and expect everyone else to pay my way.

[...] instead let's fine someone for sleeping on a bench like that will accomplish something. #33 | Posted by truthhurts

And then they will get jail for repeating. And then they will have to decide whether to make changes in their life or not.

In other words, society will find room and board and healthcare for them. Just in the most inhumane way possible, while leading to more difficulty becoming productive members of society. #35 | Posted by truthhurts

Yes, theoretically known as rehabilitation. If that will work out in practice? I don't know. I do know that other nations have managed it (see Scandinavia).

As I said earlier, some people need "stick" as well as "carrot" to make significant life changes. Druggies would be one of those groups.

And our prisons and jails do a piss poor job of rehabilitation. [...] #48 | Posted by donnerboy

Agreed. That's why many of our more enlightened communities offer defendants the opportunity to take drug rehab (outpatient or in-patient) as an alternative to prison/jail time. Once again, jail being the "stick" to the "carrot" of rehab. Because relying upon addicts to clean up of their own volition is not effective.

The price (proof) is in the pudding. Who pays for that? [...]
The defendant where they have the resources. There are also charitable organizations that do that sort of thing. And state/locally funded options, but space can be limited. Point being to compel people to clean up their act and stop externalizing the cost of their junkie lifestyle onto the rest of us for the rest of eternity.

Wouldn't it be better if mental health care was built right into a universal health care system so that it was easy to access by anyone who needs it regardless of your ability to pay? [...] #50 | Posted by donnerboy

Yes, although I was more focused on junkie-Americans rather than nutso-Americans.

As far as the mental wackos, many of them refuse treatment in the name of their freedom. So giving the homeless nutters the option of treatment instead of jail might work there as well.

Umm you become a junkie because you have mental health problems. Why would anyone in their right mind choose to be a junkie? Reminds me of a joke. Anyone who think they need therapy needs to get their head examined! #54 | Posted by donnerboy

Nope if a junkie needs the "stick" I can about guarantee that getting clean won't, well, stick. Addicts can vary rarely be forced clean for long. Long term recovery needs a desire to get clean. [...] #57 | Posted by TaoWarrior

Welp, I disagree, as I think that punishment is one of the factors that can help "create a desire to get clean." But communities that are anti-stick are still free to try their own methods without using the threat of criminal punishment.

Given the varying treatment of druggies, I guess we'll see which method, if any, is more effective. My guess, the junkies will gravitate to communities that let them do their thing. So this will work out well for everyone. The cities that don't desire junkies get to move them along, and the communities that want to coddle them will get to welcome them with open arms. Everyone will be happy!

The problem is you are talking about creating laws based on your "I think" not my "I've met and dealt with"

You seem to be making a number of (inaccurate) assumptions regarding my experience with druggies, criminals, and homeless.

This isn't playstation vs xbox debate and frankly "I think" will cause suffering and death. Of course on the plus side for you the suffering and death will be shoved out of your sight so I guess not your problem and you can continue on "thinking" that it worked.

If people insist on killing themselves, who am I to stop them? They have no right to drag me and my community down with them, though.

You will note I didn't say I disagreed with the SC on this one. I get that having homeless encampments is not just an eyesore but an actual danger to the nearby communities. Unfortunately simply pushing it down the road is not a long term solution. Like I said I don't have the solution, I just know what doesn't work at least for the junkie part of the equation. #59 | Posted by TaoWarrior

I have lots of long-term solutions, starting with how we handle the drug dealer murderers. But much of society doesn't cotton to that so the least I think we can do is give them the druggies they so desire.

And, when an individual falls to the point of homeless, should society just bulldoze that person's home? #69 | Posted by LampLighter

If you want to let homeless people camp out in front of your house, have at it.

Still wondering how a $300 fine will solve that problem. #71 | Posted by truthhurts

Jail. Jail solves that problem. As I've said multiple times.

#73 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS
That's all up to the community to decide, in terms of length of punishment, etc. as long as consistent with constitutional limitations (cruel and unusual punishment).

Why, suddenly do you say "in front of your house?
Because that's what many of them do. They set up shop in front of people's homes. Or child's elementary school in the case of the video I posted elsewhere.

What would you do to resolve the homeless problem the Country faces? #74 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER
All sorts of stuff involving "carrots" and "sticks." Which would vary depending the nature of the homeless we're dealing with. Ranging from medical care for those who need it, to prisons for those who choose to break the law.

You can read the SCOTUS decision if you want more discussion on that latter group, individuals who refuse offers of shelter and choose to remain on the street instead. Or you can just lambaste this decision without understanding the sound basis for it.

I'd suggest building public housing as well, but the country would freak out at the idea as no one wants to live near them or have such housing decrease the inflated value of their own homes.

Is that the real solution to the cause of the problem, or just yet another band-aid applied to the symptom? [...] #76 | Posted by LampLighter

I guess it depends on what you define as the "problem."

If the problem is that certain people don't have homes, then giving them a home would solve that problem, at least temporarily.

Sounds irrelevant to the issue that was before the court, but i guess it worked on you. #79 | Posted by JOE

Sounds like you aren't aware of the issue before the court.

The lower court ruling said that homeless campers couldn't be subject to sanctions where they had not been offered shelter. Many of the homeless refused shelter saying that the offer was inadequate for a number of reasons (e.g, they couldn't use drugs, smoke, bring shopping carts of belongings, bring their pit bulls, had curfews, etc.).

"Beggars can't be choosers" is apparently a foreign concept to certain entitled homeless and their enablers.