SCOTUS allows for homeless encampments to be removed

[Anonymous]

A common sense finding by the Supreme Court. The Eighth Amendment had no role to play in local officials’ ability to fight encampments.

[Anonymous]

Ok so when there are homeless people and they can't be on public space and there are no homeless shelters, where do you expect "them" to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok so when there are homeless people and they can't be on public space and there are no homeless shelters, where do you expect "them" to go?

They can go to shelters. Or if they refuse, then they can go to jail. But they cannot live on public property or on private property.

The Supreme Court caused this mess. Now they have fixed it.

The problem is not that there aren't enough shelters, generally. Homeless people do not like them, for various reasons. Too bad, my house isn't perfect either, but I don't get to just live somewhere else, on someone else's property or on public property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok so when there are homeless people and they can't be on public space and there are no homeless shelters, where do you expect "them" to go?

They will try to send them to California.

Newsom actually advocated for the court to rule in this way. I now expect Newsom to ask the legislature to (1) fund large homeless centers and (2) fund a program to deport homeless populations who are not from California.

Red states are likely going to see a return of lots of mentally ill homeless populations after this ruling. California for Californians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok so when there are homeless people and they can't be on public space and there are no homeless shelters, where do you expect "them" to go?

Local governments handle this differently. New York City makes different choices than Biloxi does. Not sure if it still exists but NY had an assistance program where they paid a full year’s rent up front to homeless that agreed to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so when there are homeless people and they can't be on public space and there are no homeless shelters, where do you expect "them" to go?

They can go to shelters. Or if they refuse, then they can go to jail. But they cannot live on public property or on private property.

The Supreme Court caused this mess. Now they have fixed it.

The problem is not that there aren't enough shelters, generally. Homeless people do not like them, for various reasons. Too bad, my house isn't perfect either, but I don't get to just live somewhere else, on someone else's property or on public property.

Shelter are non existent or full. In a lot of places, NIMBYS fight the creation of shelters.

So you want to put people in jail because they are homeless?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so when there are homeless people and they can't be on public space and there are no homeless shelters, where do you expect "them" to go?

They can go to shelters. Or if they refuse, then they can go to jail. But they cannot live on public property or on private property.

The Supreme Court caused this mess. Now they have fixed it.

The problem is not that there aren't enough shelters, generally. Homeless people do not like them, for various reasons. Too bad, my house isn't perfect either, but I don't get to just live somewhere else, on someone else's property or on public property.

Shelter are non existent or full. In a lot of places, NIMBYS fight the creation of shelters.

So you want to put people in jail because they are homeless?

They can stay at your house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so when there are homeless people and they can't be on public space and there are no homeless shelters, where do you expect "them" to go?

They can go to shelters. Or if they refuse, then they can go to jail. But they cannot live on public property or on private property.

The Supreme Court caused this mess. Now they have fixed it.

The problem is not that there aren't enough shelters, generally. Homeless people do not like them, for various reasons. Too bad, my house isn't perfect either, but I don't get to just live somewhere else, on someone else's property or on public property.

Shelter are non existent or full. In a lot of places, NIMBYS fight the creation of shelters.

So you want to put people in jail because they are homeless?

They can stay at your house.

That isn't the point. We have a lot of homeless in this country for a variety of reasons. They can't be on private property, there aren't enough shelters, there aren't enough churches...what do we do with them? Putting them in jail is expensive and heartless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so when there are homeless people and they can't be on public space and there are no homeless shelters, where do you expect "them" to go?

They can go to shelters. Or if they refuse, then they can go to jail. But they cannot live on public property or on private property.

The Supreme Court caused this mess. Now they have fixed it.

The problem is not that there aren't enough shelters, generally. Homeless people do not like them, for various reasons. Too bad, my house isn't perfect either, but I don't get to just live somewhere else, on someone else's property or on public property.

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so when there are homeless people and they can't be on public space and there are no homeless shelters, where do you expect "them" to go?

They can go to shelters. Or if they refuse, then they can go to jail. But they cannot live on public property or on private property.

The Supreme Court caused this mess. Now they have fixed it.

The problem is not that there aren't enough shelters, generally. Homeless people do not like them, for various reasons. Too bad, my house isn't perfect either, but I don't get to just live somewhere else, on someone else's property or on public property.

Shelter are non existent or full. In a lot of places, NIMBYS fight the creation of shelters.

So you want to put people in jail because they are homeless?

PP said jail for refusal to go to a shelter, not because of their status of being homeless. That type of rhetorical twist isn’t going to fly.

[Anonymous]

Send them all to maga states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so when there are homeless people and they can't be on public space and there are no homeless shelters, where do you expect "them" to go?

They can go to shelters. Or if they refuse, then they can go to jail. But they cannot live on public property or on private property.

The Supreme Court caused this mess. Now they have fixed it.

The problem is not that there aren't enough shelters, generally. Homeless people do not like them, for various reasons. Too bad, my house isn't perfect either, but I don't get to just live somewhere else, on someone else's property or on public property.

Shelter are non existent or full. In a lot of places, NIMBYS fight the creation of shelters.

So you want to put people in jail because they are homeless?

PP said jail for refusal to go to a shelter, not because of their status of being homeless. That type of rhetorical twist isn’t going to fly.

Ok and if the shelters and churches are all full, or there are not shelters, where should they go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so when there are homeless people and they can't be on public space and there are no homeless shelters, where do you expect "them" to go?

They can go to shelters. Or if they refuse, then they can go to jail. But they cannot live on public property or on private property.

The Supreme Court caused this mess. Now they have fixed it.

The problem is not that there aren't enough shelters, generally. Homeless people do not like them, for various reasons. Too bad, my house isn't perfect either, but I don't get to just live somewhere else, on someone else's property or on public property.

Shelter are non existent or full. In a lot of places, NIMBYS fight the creation of shelters.

So you want to put people in jail because they are homeless?

Nah, there are shelters. In places where the shelters are full, additional capacity or additional shelters are added. A decade ago, this was the issue. Now it is not anymore, the issue is that homeless people dislike the shelters because there are rules and sometimes there are problems with crime from other homeless people. Too bad, that doesn't give you the right to live somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so when there are homeless people and they can't be on public space and there are no homeless shelters, where do you expect "them" to go?

They can go to shelters. Or if they refuse, then they can go to jail. But they cannot live on public property or on private property.

The Supreme Court caused this mess. Now they have fixed it.

The problem is not that there aren't enough shelters, generally. Homeless people do not like them, for various reasons. Too bad, my house isn't perfect either, but I don't get to just live somewhere else, on someone else's property or on public property.

Shelter are non existent or full. In a lot of places, NIMBYS fight the creation of shelters.

So you want to put people in jail because they are homeless?

PP said jail for refusal to go to a shelter, not because of their status of being homeless. That type of rhetorical twist isn’t going to fly.

Ok and if the shelters and churches are all full, or there are not shelters, where should they go?

If I can’t afford to live in Manhattan because the rent is too high, what do I do? I have to move and find a different place to live. I don’t just suddenly have the right to live on the sidewalk because I refuse to consider leaving. Why are some people entitled to remain in place and some have to figure it out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Send them all to maga states.

If you can send them out, maga states can too.