SCOTUS allows for homeless encampments to be removed

[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?

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.

Nope. Shelters are full. People have no other choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

And if you don't have the money to move and are literally carrying all of your worldly possessions?

[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?

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.

Nope. Shelters are full. People have no other choices.

Oh well.

They can try attacking daycare workers and see if that will get them a place in jail, I guess? If they don't want to live in a shelter.

[Anonymous]

There are people commenting on this thread from a place of privilege, who have no idea how shelters, urban policy etc work.

So heartless. I hope you NEVER have to experience homelessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are people commenting on this thread from a place of privilege, who have no idea how shelters, urban policy etc work.

So heartless. I hope you NEVER have to experience homelessness.

Allowing people to live in dangerous tent cities is inhumane and does them no favors. They need to find another solution.

[Anonymous]

The problem is nobody wants to pay for mental institutions. The vast majority of street homeless have serious mental illnesses and should be housed in institutions with services.

The institutions had many problems in the past but the street is not a better place. Rebuild and reform the MH institutes.

[Anonymous]

Democrats can still allow homeless encampments if they want to

[Anonymous]

Stop letting in millions of illegal immigrants and suddenly the housing shortage goes away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop letting in millions of illegal immigrants and suddenly the housing shortage goes away.

+1 illegal immigrants are taking resources our homeless need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

And if you don't have the money to move and are literally carrying all of your worldly possessions?

So homeless people have a right that others don’t to stay in place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are people commenting on this thread from a place of privilege, who have no idea how shelters, urban policy etc work.

So heartless. I hope you NEVER have to experience homelessness.

They think they're insulated from this. It's that old cliche poem over and over again first they came for the homeless, and I did nothing. They forget how the poem ends. We are sleepwalking into something very bad.

The rhetoric against migrants, against trans people, against homeless people is scary. They are slowly criminalizing it all. Meaning they will round up and "detain" them. Forcing them to work for free in the cages and camps you all let them build at the border.

Once they're done with the migrants, trans people, homeless people, who the hell do you think is next?

The 1930's are repeating themselves before our eyes and you morons either can't see it, or you secretly want it.

[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?

Martha’s Vineyard

Then amazingly progressives will respond

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is nobody wants to pay for mental institutions. The vast majority of street homeless have serious mental illnesses and should be housed in institutions with services.

The institutions had many problems in the past but the street is not a better place. Rebuild and reform the MH institutes.

No, the problem is that the patient is both unwell and has to agree to treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are people commenting on this thread from a place of privilege, who have no idea how shelters, urban policy etc work.

So heartless. I hope you NEVER have to experience homelessness.

They think they're insulated from this. It's that old cliche poem over and over again first they came for the homeless, and I did nothing. They forget how the poem ends. We are sleepwalking into something very bad.

The rhetoric against migrants, against trans people, against homeless people is scary. They are slowly criminalizing it all. Meaning they will round up and "detain" them. Forcing them to work for free in the cages and camps you all let them build at the border.

Once they're done with the migrants, trans people, homeless people, who the hell do you think is next?

The 1930's are repeating themselves before our eyes and you morons either can't see it, or you secretly want it.

SMH

Your tent encampments are dangerous places for those who live there and for everyone else. They are also illegal.

Find another solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are people commenting on this thread from a place of privilege, who have no idea how shelters, urban policy etc work.

So heartless. I hope you NEVER have to experience homelessness.

Allowing people to live in dangerous tent cities is inhumane and does them no favors. They need to find another solution.

And that solution is???????