SCOTUS allows for homeless encampments to be removed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Offer another solution, since you just banned this one.

The mentality ill and addicts need to be institutionalized until they can participate in society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Offer another solution, since you just banned this one.

The mentality ill and addicts need to be institutionalized until they can participate in society.

Okay, but here is what will happen: our legal shakedown industry will sue every one of those institutions claiming the “patients” are being held against their will. What state or locality wants to fight that? Easier to put them on a bus elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

So glad for this ruling as I know live in California. So are the majority of my friends who are liberal Democrats. There are so many drug addict and/or mentally ill vagrants who have come to California and absolutely refuse help. This is the key here. So many aggressive vagrants are refusing help and setting up camp wherever they want.

They are not on the outskirts of cities and towns, they are setting up tents and tarps in parks under playground equipment, beaches, in the doorways of storefronts, and leaving needles and feces all over. So sad that every morning small business owners have to be cleaning up feces from their doorways and in alleys in the back of their buildings.

My teens surf and I worry about them stepping in needles and getting hepatitis from the polluted water because there is so much feces in the water from homeless living in the river bottom.

Every time we go to beach cleanups so many needles are found. My son found a packet of white powdery crystal in a baggie in a tube. The waiver for the beach clean up includes in capital letters the inherent hazard of a beach clean includes getting harmed by needles.

It is so frustrating for school kids who have to walk to school to pass by strung out homeless who block the sidewalk.

Everyone still has compassion for the single mom who is getting evicted, the elderly who are getting priced out, the homeless who actually want help. This ruling helps sweep the vagrants out of parks, sidewalks, beaches, etc.

[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?

Go camp in the middle of nowhere. These homeless people aren't "camping" in any sense of the word - they're essentially living on public property and creating a public health hazard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You need to open your eyes. There’s no infinite source of money. You can’t open the borders to everyone and also house them and also have the money for citizens to have shelters too.

The borders are not open. Tent encampments have been around for decades before Biden became president. We have a shortage of shelters and resources for addicts and the mentally ill. The GOP refuses to provide money for any of this and the problem exacerbates. go ahead and keep sticking your head in the sand and I guess one day, it will magically resolve itself. And god forbid you or a family member ever find yourself in such a position.

Battling homelessness is an issue for local governments. You aren’t seeing these encampments in Charleston or Jacksonville. You are seeing them in Democrat run cities like NYC and Portland. The issue of GOP funding is nonsensical.

It is always a relief to travel to Florida. Suddenly there are very few homeless people. It’s like going back in time to a better place. Was also great during Covid to be out in public without (as we now know) useless masks.

I am not sure what you all are talking about with respect to lack of homeless in Florida. They are all over the place, at least in my experience in the greater orlando, gulf areas etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Offer another solution, since you just banned this one.

The mentality ill and addicts need to be institutionalized until they can participate in society.

Where? Reagan closed them all.

[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?

Insane asylums and need to be able to commit people again.

[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?

Go camp in the middle of nowhere. These homeless people aren't "camping" in any sense of the word - they're essentially living on public property and creating a public health hazard.

On someone's private property? Because they can't now on public property.

So...where do they go?

[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?

Insane asylums and need to be able to commit people again.

That requires the GOP willing to fund them again.

[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?

Go camp in the middle of nowhere. These homeless people aren't "camping" in any sense of the word - they're essentially living on public property and creating a public health hazard.

On someone's private property? Because they can't now on public property.

So...where do they go?

Canada is still pretty empty.

[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 be trained, get jobs, earn a living, and rent.

Mentally ill? Longterm hospitalization.

Criminals? Prison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So glad for this ruling as I know live in California. So are the majority of my friends who are liberal Democrats. There are so many drug addict and/or mentally ill vagrants who have come to California and absolutely refuse help. This is the key here. So many aggressive vagrants are refusing help and setting up camp wherever they want.

They are not on the outskirts of cities and towns, they are setting up tents and tarps in parks under playground equipment, beaches, in the doorways of storefronts, and leaving needles and feces all over. So sad that every morning small business owners have to be cleaning up feces from their doorways and in alleys in the back of their buildings.

My teens surf and I worry about them stepping in needles and getting hepatitis from the polluted water because there is so much feces in the water from homeless living in the river bottom.

Every time we go to beach cleanups so many needles are found. My son found a packet of white powdery crystal in a baggie in a tube. The waiver for the beach clean up includes in capital letters the inherent hazard of a beach clean includes getting harmed by needles.

It is so frustrating for school kids who have to walk to school to pass by strung out homeless who block the sidewalk.

Everyone still has compassion for the single mom who is getting evicted, the elderly who are getting priced out, the homeless who actually want help. This ruling helps sweep the vagrants out of parks, sidewalks, beaches, etc.

Former SoCal resident here:
Do you think California will start shipping these folks out of state and back to their old homes?

California simply cannot build enough to house all these homeless. Many of whom have never paid a dime in taxes in California. So many of them come when young adults to get high and end up on the streets for years and years. The van life people need to go back too. The last time I visited my home city, there were tons of junky vans, SUVs, and RVs from out-of-state living at the beach. They cause all sorts of crime at night, including violence.

[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 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.

If there's someplace to send the homeless it should be the cheapest parts of the country, NOT the high-cost-of-living places like DC or California. Trying to stuff all of the homeless into high-cost-of-living areas is likely to cause oversized tax increases which will cause even more homelessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So glad for this ruling as I know live in California. So are the majority of my friends who are liberal Democrats. There are so many drug addict and/or mentally ill vagrants who have come to California and absolutely refuse help. This is the key here. So many aggressive vagrants are refusing help and setting up camp wherever they want.

They are not on the outskirts of cities and towns, they are setting up tents and tarps in parks under playground equipment, beaches, in the doorways of storefronts, and leaving needles and feces all over. So sad that every morning small business owners have to be cleaning up feces from their doorways and in alleys in the back of their buildings.

My teens surf and I worry about them stepping in needles and getting hepatitis from the polluted water because there is so much feces in the water from homeless living in the river bottom.

Every time we go to beach cleanups so many needles are found. My son found a packet of white powdery crystal in a baggie in a tube. The waiver for the beach clean up includes in capital letters the inherent hazard of a beach clean includes getting harmed by needles.

It is so frustrating for school kids who have to walk to school to pass by strung out homeless who block the sidewalk.

Everyone still has compassion for the single mom who is getting evicted, the elderly who are getting priced out, the homeless who actually want help. This ruling helps sweep the vagrants out of parks, sidewalks, beaches, etc.

Former SoCal resident here:
Do you think California will start shipping these folks out of state and back to their old homes?

California simply cannot build enough to house all these homeless. Many of whom have never paid a dime in taxes in California. So many of them come when young adults to get high and end up on the streets for years and years. The van life people need to go back too. The last time I visited my home city, there were tons of junky vans, SUVs, and RVs from out-of-state living at the beach. They cause all sorts of crime at night, including violence.

Yep, send them home. You're under no obligation to support them. Let their hometown community take care of them.

[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?

Insane asylums and need to be able to commit people again.

That requires the GOP willing to fund them again.

That sounds like SocIaLIsM!!