In April, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a major case that could reshape how cities manage homelessness. The legal issue is whether they can fine or arrest people for sleeping outside if there’s no shelter available. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has deemed this cruel and unusual punishment, and this case is a pivotal challenge to that ruling.
The high court declined to take up a similar case in 2019. But since then, homelessness rates have climbed relentlessly. Street encampments have grown larger and have expanded to new places, igniting intense backlash from residents and businesses. Homelessness and the lack of affordable housing that’s helping to drive it have become key issues for many voters.
The case, Grants Pass v. Johnson, could have dramatic implications for the record number of people living in tents and cars across the United States.
Yes, charging them money for the crime of not having enough money should solve the issue! Then we can pay to house them in prison instead of paying to house them in housing where they might have gotten a job.
Oh, they’ll have a job in prison, too. They just won’t get paid to do it.
They get paid for it but it’s like 13¢ an hour.
Removed by mod
Slavery is always the goal.
None of this is an accident. This is literally war against poor people.
More prisoners = more slave labor.
Instead of fines or arrests, how about accommodation?
“House the homeless? I’d much rather my tax money go to buying tanks for the police.” - Average NIMBY
But that would cost rich people money. Can’t have that.
I mean you don’t get rich without exploiting people. You don’t get rich being morally responsible.
This is literally a war. It’s rich vs poor.
Theres plenty of accomadation. The problem is that they refuse to use it.
“Why do people choose to live under bridges wherever they want instead of in one giant communal room where they have a cot they can be raped on when they try to sleep?”
It’s spelled accommodation. For someone that supposedly graduated college you’d think you’d know that.
“THEY” don’t refuse anything. Some people do.
Not that you give a shit. You just regurgitate whatever your asshole uncle tells you to without thinking.
Fuck back off to posting Fox News articles in your conservative circlejerk hut and stay there, shitbag. No real human wants to interact with you cunts.
That’s what I said. They give out fines and arrests because they refuse to let people into the accommodations
I’m no expert, but making it illegal doesn’t seem like a solution to homelessness.
Except of course they aren’t looking for a solution. That’d explain a lot.
Removed by mod
What conservatives fail to acknowledge about this solution is that the taxpayers are now paying to feed and house these people, in jail, at a cost much higher than if you fed and housed them in society in the first place with the added draw back of them have zero opportunity to improve their situation on their own when you have them locked behind bars. Then their sentence ends and they get kicked out on the street right back in the same position they started in.
It’s all so obvious and I don’t get how so many people fail to see this. Jail is upwards of $100/day which comes out to ~$3000 per month. You could rent them an entire house for $3000 a month in most areas.
Removed by mod
This is going to end up with crucifixion being legalized.
They should legalize crucifixion but only for people who don’t return the shopping trolley.
I’m shocked this isn’t legal in the more Jesus-y places already
OH MY FUCKING GOD HOUSE THEM
Serious question, where?
If they’re willing to put them in jail then the state is already willing to pay for their housing and healthcare.
I bet it’s cheaper to build housing than keeping the same person in prison for a non-crime such as living rough.
Oh wait there are some studies already
It’s even cheaper to house them than to have them remain unhoused.
in a house
Bell Riots, here we come.
Sorry for the fandom link.
I am curious how they will rule. On one hand the Catholics are going to be told to not go after the homeless on the other hand Alito and Clarence are going to get a donation from the Chamber of Commerce.
Oh the supreme Court? So flamethrowers?
But powered by oil made from
humanhomeless fatty tissues.So a biofuel, is good for you. Unless you look at your landlord funny, then it’s a bit harmful to you.
It’s the new BEFNG ones, you’re fine. Unless you’re at the other end
It’s not a war against homelessness. It’s a war against the homeless.
Supreme Court about to legalize homeless hunting licenses.
Hunting them down for sport wins 6 votes against 3
The “problem” has gotten worse and is not just in the big cities. It is going on everywhere. A lot of these people just want their freedom to “be”. Most of the cities just want them to leave. If you offer them services, they will have to want them or at least follow the minimum rules at a facility (like be sober) to stay there. Some just aren’t going to do it. Period. I speak as a recovering alcoholic and know this to be true. I don’t think municipalities want them dead, they just want them to be somewhere else. Do they have the right to push them out? Will be an interesting case to follow.
There is no “somewhere else” for them to go to, just a bunch of other places where people don’t want them either. Seems like everywhere in America just wants to shuffle homeless people around without doing much (or often anything) to actually solve the problem.
There’s nothing a city can realistically do except shuffle them around - providing assistance simply motivates more homeless people to arrive from other places until the assistance is exhausted and the city is left worse off, with less money and more homeless people.
What do you suggest?
Not criminalizing homelessness for starters.
The actual solution is to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place, but that would be “socialism” and therefore too unpopular to actually implement. But housing-first solutions seem to work great every time they’re tried.
I hear your point but I am not sure how you would prevent people from becoming homeless. Like, how do you suggest implementing this? Seriously. (Trying to get beyond the easy platitudes and idealism you suggest.) Section 8 housing has been available in the US since 1937. Apparently that hasn’t worked. There is also the HUD Exchange:
UBI and/or a housing guarantee.
At a certain point it’s the same thing. When the government makes it that hard to live, it’s just going you die and solve the problem for them. Disability is the same way.
… so it’s the USA supreme court that comes up with Soylent Green recipe?
Actually kinda makes sense.
How far? Like housing them and treating their physical and mental health issues? Legalizing drugs so that we don’t criminalize addiction? Can you really go to far too help people in need?
deleted by creator
Because this is 'Murica, the land where logic, reason, decency, and compassion go to die. We’ll spare no expense to save money then write it all of as the cost of doing business. Fixing the problem isn’t nearly so attractive as just criminalizing anyone that isn’t helping our corporate overlords to turn a profit. Find a way to monetize the unhoused, make them a product of some kind (looking at you Soylent Green) and communities will be only to happy to welcome them in.
As the late philosopher Carlin said, “we don’t have time for rational solutions”
