SCOTUS allows for homeless encampments to be removed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which is why in some cases we need forced longterm institutionalization.

If the person poses a demonstrable threat to themselves or to others, that choice should be taken away from them. Any homeless mentally ill person who assaults a random bystander on the street for one. Or, people with destructive drug habits. If they can be treated and made well, and graduate out of the program with a job and able to take care of themselves, great. Otherwise, they shouldn't be on the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone posting on this thread even actually been homeless for an extended period of time?

NP. I haven’t been homeless but my sister and her daughter were when she escaped an abusive marriage. The SCOTUS are just monsters. If you’re homeless, where are you going to go?

A tent encampment was a better option for your sister and niece than a women's shelter? I would have thought the opposite.

She couldn’t get in because they were full.

Did she and your niece come stay with you? I am sorry for your sister’s situation but I can’t imagine your sister and niece sleeping on the street is a safe situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have you considered voting Republican for your local representation?

DP. Republicans don’t fix problems; they just make people illegal. They make life harder for everyone. The only people they fight for are rich white people and fetuses.

Republican cities aren’t the ones with the tent encampments. No one is “made” illegal. Behaviors are illegal.

Republican areas of the country literally give their homeless and mentally ill bus tickets to the nearest big blue city or blue state. Arizona and Nevada cops have sent homeless to California for decades.

NJ resident here. Newark sued NYC for doing the exact same thing. It’s not behavior unique to Republicans.

Yeah but NYC probably got a lot of its homeless sent there from all over the country.

That’s total BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!!

That's what intergenerational welfare is. You should have time to get your stuff together. But not free everything for 50 years like living in "the projects". Enough is enough.