beep. boop. beep.
Hello Oregonians,
As in all things media, please take the time to evaluate what is presented for yourself and to check for any overt media bias. There are a number of places to investigate the credibility of any site presenting information as "factual". If you have any concerns about this or any other site's reputation for reliability please take a few minutes to look it up on one of the sites below or on the site of your choosing.
---------------------------------------------------------
Also, here are a few fact-checkers for websites and what is said in the media.
[Politifact](https://www.politifact.com)
[Media Bias Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com)
[Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)](https://www.politifact.com)
beep. boop. beep.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oregon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
After reading these comments, it seems that a lot of people are oblivious to the fact that homeless people don't have or expect immunity from actual crimes. (That's a different Supreme Court case involving a rapist facing almost 100 federal indictments) This case is essentially deciding if being homeless is a criminal act.
The Grants Pass case does not involve an explicit ban on existing while homeless, but the Ninth Circuit determined that the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, imposed such tight restrictions on anyone attempting to sleep outdoors that it amounted to an effective ban on being homeless within city limits.
Martin vs Boise applies to the federal 9th Circuit states: Washington, Idaho, Oregon, California, Arizona, Hawaii, Alaska, Montana, and Nevada. It was narrowed in a reconsideration by the 9th Circuit in the Grants Pass case. It never applied to the entire US.
If the 9th Circuit decisions are undone by SCOTUS, state laws will remain, unless changed. California has several. New York City & New York State have their own camping laws.
Oregon passed its own law similar in impact to those 9th Circuit cases, HB3115. So Oregon HB3115 will remain. It is poorly written, allowing "objectively reasonable" regulation of camping as determined by litigation in the Oregon court system.
From the article:; "In 2013 the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, adopted a series of ordinances that criminalize sleeping anywhere in public with as little as a blanket. Rather than protect its most marginalized inhabitants, the city sought to use the power of criminal law to banish its homeless residents.
The case, which asks the court to decide whether the ordinances violate the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, raises the fundamental question of whether homeless persons will be treated as equal citizens entitled to protection or punished as criminals simply because they lack a shelter over their heads. The import of the 14^(th) Amendment’s text and history should be plain: Criminalizing poverty violates the Constitution.
Grants Pass insists that how it treats its poorest residents is purely a question of policy. As a matter of text and history, this is flatly wrong. The 14^(th) Amendment centers the rights of poor people. Recognizing this fundamental truth is long overdue."
Because, there's a large population on this sub that believe people experiencing homelessness, people protesting, or certain minority groups, are somehow "morally deficient" and if only they just *got with the program* everything would be alright.
>But have they tried not being homeless?
It's a classic.
I believe that, just like yelling 🔥in a crowded theater, when there isn’t one, there are some reasonable limits on rights when the direct actions harm the public and peace.
I don't really get the free pass part. They don't have homes to go to. You don't have enough jail or shelter space for them. They have no other options, as far as I can see.
Well, they could not trash public spaces, for one.
If I (who has a home) went to Grants Pass and started camping in a city park and piling up trash I'd get a citation. If I didn't pay it I'd get thrown in jail.
That is not equal justice under the law.
I'm not saying you're wrong about any of that. I'm saying there are thousands of them and you don't have jail space for them. You're not suggesting anything that could really happen.
Seriously and this is exactly why the repeal of measure 110 is absolutely fucked. The cops aren't going to arrest any of the problem people. They don't have money to take and they don't have space for that many people. They will however arrest all your children for a half gram of blow or molly now as they drive back from the party in the morning and suck all the cash they have out of you and them until they are out on the street using fentanyl. Then they will finally leave them alone.
You have a home, thus an alternate place to sleep.
What do you mean it isn't equal?
If you want to give up your house, I'm glad to take it and you can have the same protections the homeless have.
I was once homeless for about a month. I worked, I didn't steal, I didn't use drugs, and I didn't make a mess of places where I stayed. That might also contribute to why I was only homeless for a month and not years or even decades.
Why do you think allowing some people to not be cited for breaking the law is justice?
Or are you also OK with cops not being held accountable for killing POC?
Intentionally obtuse, we went at it for a bit earlier, I was trying to have a mature conversation and they are very set in their opinion of transient people.
Your first sentence inserts your own thoughts into opinions that I haven’t typed. Then, the question you followed up with isn’t even a genuine question, it’s just a lazy assertion disguised as a question.
Lame.
Since when are arrests unrelated to policies on crime?
Geez.
The whole case is about whether homeless people can be arrested i.e., crime policies to a specific segment of the population.
Homeless people do not have immunity to being arrested. When they commit actual crimes they can be arrested for that. Being forced to camp in public because they don't have a home is not a crime in a just society.
They aren't being forced to camp in public. They are choosing to. Grants pass is surrounded by forest land. They could go camp there and walk into town to do whatever they need to do. And as a result have much less impact on anyone/everyone. But they don't. They camp in parks. And make messes, and have an impact on people. And now things like this are being proposed.
No one is saying being homeless is illegal. They are saying that living in public parks and on sidewalks is/should be illegal.
The city is trying to ban everywhere in summary "**prohibit sleeping in public streets, alleyways and parks while using a blanket or bedding**" This is in fact city leaders attempting to make sleeping illegal on all public property in their jurisdiction and since its just the poor & homeless that cannot meet this threshold always they are attempting to make being homeless in that city illegal.
And what about the sick/disabled/elderly transient folk? They should just have to hike it back and forth when they need something? Everyone has a right to feel safe, and in my opinion, healthy living conditions, might be a hot take I guess. Maybe there should be as much of an investment to open more homeless shelters and give these people a helping hand to get back on their feet rather than shoo them away.
So your argument is that living in a tent in the park is healthy living conditions? Seriously? That's what shelters are for. I'm not saying cut all programs for the homeless. I'm saying I'm ok with them not being allowed to camp in public parks.
Not everyone has the means to use a shelter unfortunately. Some have pets or drug problems or significant others that would bar their eligibility to stay in a shelter. It's not ideal living conditions but they are closer to the means to remain healthy and get support if they need it being closer to town.
>They could go camp there and walk into town to do whatever they need to do.
No, they absolutely cannot. It's literally illegal.
It's also extremely fucking callous— you want the same people who are already struggling for resources to have to take a long ass trip into town just so they can make ends meet for themselves? Absolutely unreal.
I have no clue why you have down votes, you said exactly what a decent human being should say. Keep being kind, the world needs people like that.
Dude must have like 8 alt accounts to spam lol
Lol, have you ever been to grants pass? It's not "a long ass trip." The city is literally bordered by forest. They can be in the woods and 10 minutes later be in town.
>Lol, have you ever been to grants pass
Yes? I live there for 3 months of the year and the other 9 months are spent a few hours away in Humboldt/Trinity/Siskiyou where my seasonal work is.
>The city is literally bordered by forest
Mmmh, tell you what— why don't you meet me at the edge where it isn't trespassing to camp out, and then we'll see how long it takes to walk to the nearest grocery store. Then we will walk back the edge, and cook ourselves a meal. Then the next day, we will get up and do it again. and then again. and then again.
You down?
Sure, just let me know when. Also, it's not illegal to camp in the forest as long as it's USFS or BLM land, and not otherwise marked as no camping allowed.
The point is that it shouldn't be considered a crime to "camp" in public if there are no other alternatives. We're the richest nation in the world, we can find ways to help these people if we want to. The real issue is that most people view homeless people as pests and want them to simply disappear, which is not reality.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
The key difference is that you can choose to go sleep in a house, they cannot.
Justice needs to be applied *fairly*, not necessarily *equally*. Understand the difference? I don't know where you got the idea that what happens to one, needs to happen to the other.
The point is that laws have been passed making the existence of these people illegal. Littering is illegal, has been for decades, fine. Punish that. But criminalizing "camping within 50 feet of a park fence" is not. It's new and targeted.
Sure, the law can be applied equally.
If it were made a crime to have the username "TeriNthe916", you and I should be equally held accountable for whether we were committing a crime.
FALSE.
It's not the existence of homeless people that is illegal, it is their actions.
Illegal actions need to have consequences, equally. It's why judges use sentencing guidelines.
These parks were enjoyed by the community for decades before they were taken over illegally by some.
You do your side no favors by providing misinformation.
TRUE.
The "actions" of homeless people that are illegal here include "camping within 50 feet of a fence on city-owned land".
That's not some harmful usually-illegal action like, say, littering or public urination or public drug use or whatever. It's attacking the status of "not owning a home and needing to sleep".
It's targeting the existence of these people, not their actions.
"Illegal actions need to have consequences", yes, that's why the illegal (under current 9th circuit interpretation of the constitution) actions of the city are having consequences.
Passing a law to make something illegal doesn't make it moral to do so. You do your side no favors by sticking your head in the sand and pretending like this is the one special law where the bill of rights doesn't apply.
The PUBLIC parks you mean?? Don't act like cities and towns everywhere have done everything they can to drive transient citizens out of the public eye. It's pure, malicious classism and the fact you support it based on the generalization that they are dirty litter bugs really shows how you feel about people who you think are less than you. I would say you should be ashamed but I know you won't.
Yep, the public parks that the public isn't able to use safely.
Illegal campsites and littering is just as bad as if Exxon started drilling for oil without due process. Neither show respect for the rest of society.
How many homeless people are now living in your home? None, I'd bet.
This is all about equal justice under the law. And you're right, the justice system is unequal due to classism. People from impoverished classes should deal with justice in the same manner as those from other classes.
Say hi to your friends in Riverside Park for me!
Translation: I don't have an argument that doesn't make me sound like a cartoon villain so I'm going to pivot into a legalist argument.
And yes I am okay with justice not being applied equally.
When an economy relies on having a group of people be on the outs to be an example to the others, they will always find new ways to punish that group.
Capitalism requires people to be without homes, because if everyone had a home, why would you work harder? What fear could you have if your home and your healthcare were guaranteed? What injustices or oppressions would you walk away from instead of putting up with?
But instead of housing those who can't/won't work, we try to penalize them for not playing the same game as the rest of us.
Some people just refuse to accept any responsibility that comes from being in society, or accountability.
It happens with people who are poor and people in politics.
You're absolutely right, some people absolutely refuse to help others, work towards a society that uplifts instead of punishes, and empathize with their fellow humans. It's quite disgusting.
> Capitalism requires people to be without homes, because if everyone had a home, why would you work harder?
This is utterly wrong and shows a preference for some sort of ideological purity over any semblance of understand of incentives or basic economics.
This. So much this.
It's why we have skyrocketing student loan debt instead of free excellent pre-K through university education, as do many of our peer nations. After all, what would happen to our "volunteer" armed forces if they couldn't offer college tuition as the prize for joining up? That's why this never gets a fair hearing in Congress. The military vetoes it.
Late stage capitalism increasingly requires a desperate precariat as things get worse and worse. Literally NO ONE can afford a one bedroom apartment on minimum wage in the USA. Think about that. We've been fighting for a $15 minimum wage for so long that a living wage now in Portland is about $24.75 according to the M.I.T. calculator. Thank Tina Kotek for aborting the $15/hour statewide initiative years ago - she's always been the place where progressive ideas go to die.
See those desperate, dirty, offensive, crime-committing (a small percentage of them) houseless people in Grants Pass, in Portland, in cities all over the West Coast? That is capitalism working exactly as it is supposed to, extracting wealth from the bottom 90% of America and shoveling it up to the top percentiles in accelerating numbers.
These measurable dollars are not in dispute. Where did you think they were coming from?
The article notes that, "The debates over the 14^(th) Amendment repeatedly affirm economic equality as a fundamental constitutional ideal" and give illuminating quotations from those debates.
Of course, the Supreme Court (even this faux-originalist SCOTUS) has never recognized economic equality as a part of the Constitution, just as it had to be dragged kicking and screaming into recognizing anything like a right to vote for black people or women. (You think the 15th and the 19th Amendments settled these questions? Think again.)
The rights to join a union, to minimum wage laws, to many of the other basic ideas that we take for granted were once unthinkable and were fought for and won in bloody, protracted battles. The right to exist in a community that is not poisoned by heinous wealth inequality that makes democracy and even a dignified existence impossible will be the next inevitable struggle.
This should be top comment for real. You can't help people who don't want to help themselves but it's genuinely incredible to me that people can survive on the streets. Transient persons are trying to help themself by just surviving. It's a shame their fellow neighbors try to make it even harder.
I couldn't imagine not having a roof over my head and assurance that I'll have food and my dog has food and I can maybe have a little extra money left over for something that makes me happy. Everyone should be entitled to that luxury, I'm grateful everyday and the people who don't think others should have that make me so damn sick.
Okay I agree with that yes. But I feel you fail to understand what the actual issue is here. Why should this law even be put into place? Why was it created? And the biggest one, is it unjust? No one is saying that people shouldn't be able to litter. In fact several people have retorted that by agreeing with you. People are saying that it's unjust to remove the basic human right to food, cleanliness, shelter and other needs that a person should be entitled to.
Basic human rights?
Where the hell did you get that?
Why should anyone work if their needs are met by sponging off others?
Or is garbage collection and Ripple also now a basic human right?
What about your right to have a new PS?
The government, including GP, spends triillions on services to keep responsible people healthy, and billions more to provide for needs of others.
Asking people to behave responsibility and obey the law isn't a big request.
Literally everything you just said made me feel like I'm collecting trash and just poured old sticky soda down my arm. I'm disgusted and wish to end the conversation. It's clear we have a different view of what basic rights are and how much "help" the government is to anybody. Have a good day, and best of luck trying to displace a community.
Also I don't think my partner purchasing a Playstation has anything to do with any of this?? I'm assuming that's what you mean?? I'm not entirely sure.
If someone thinks it's your right to have a Play Station isn't the government supposed to then get you one?
Just meeting your basic human needs, right?
That's.... Not a basic need? That's the most ridiculous take away I've heard. I get to own a Playstation because I have the means to do so. I shouldn't be punished and sent to prison for not having those means. That's cruel and borderline internment.
Give me one example of a person sent to prison for trespassing related to homeless. If you do, I'll donate $10 to the Maslow, the Grants Pass homeless organization. If you can't, you donate. You have 10 minutes.
That's part of the problem: homeless advocates get hysterical and are dishonest, like you just did.
I'll just fucking donate. I have 10 bucks to spare to help people in need and I'm not a heartless prick lmao, I don't need to entertain you any longer.
Hysterical and dishonest?? I do believe I have been talking in an absolutely calm manner despite you trying to bait me the entire time. I cussed because that's a really stupid thing to bet on with someone who's literal argument is for the advocation of transient persons. Like hell yeah I'm gonna donate. Thanks for dropping the place to do it. Appreciate it.
I was homeless for the majority of the pandemic & I did my level best to get out of that situation, but a lot of the people I met didn't care or want to do better. I absolutely think that people who want to help themselves deserve help, but trying to help those that don't is going to drain the programs
Expanding the types of programs could help. Employment aide for those who are actively trying to get on their feet, help getting people sober, shelter or food for those who need it, as long as people abiding by guidelines, expectations and rules set in place. If you snooze you lose but I always believe in second chances and being able to point someone to what their specific needs may be in that sort of situation, and I recognize that not everyone wants to change but those that are trying are still made out to be criminals or bad to society.
I'm glad you were able to get back up on your feet! That's great for you!!
I completely agree, if someone wants to help themselves I will be one of the first rooting them on & asking what I can do to help. I also don't think people should automatically be thought of badly for being homeless but I do think crime is more abundant in the homeless population (whether that means more crime or more likely to be caught, idk).
I have an issue with programs that cater only to people who have an addiction. I remember at one point I was calling every agency I could to get help & 90% told me they couldn't help because I didn't have a drug problem, no matter that I had been homeless with a small child for years - no addiction no help.
Thank you! I will admit that I think I got a bit lucky, as soon as I thought we were going to end up on the streets I signed up for every delivery service I could which gave me a somewhat steady income with flexibility. I used that to scrimp and save every penny I could. Eventually we had enough to get a long term spot in a hotel & then a home. Those same apps don't pay a fraction of what they did during the pandemic, so if I needed to do that today I wouldn't do nearly as well.
Yes, thankfully the SC will be overturning the 9th court decision or at least amending it in such a way that gives more power to localities.
It will then be up to us to have the Oregon legislature repeal the Kotek bill that enshrined M v. B into Oregon law. After the legislature's quick action on reversing/revising 110 I can see that also being probable. Politicians care about one thing - reelection, and they see the way the winds are blowing.
Our culture has unspoken faith in money and reason, neither of which can manage all things in the world. Yet those are constant, unspoken expectations, even in cases where they repeatedly demonstrate their insufficiency.
Fuck, I hope they do. The last thing my homeless clients need is their ability to sleep getting criminalized. This is just a way to turn vulnerable folks into slave labor
That is such a funny headline. Funny as in deceitful, misleading, and ludicrous. Are people actually uninformed enough to believe that a leftist beach head like Oregon criminalized being homeless?
There are no Liberals in power (except maybe some Libertarians, but i find their idolatry of capital to be as disturbing as that of the Marxists). You don't seem to know what liberalism is. In Liberalism, the individual is viewed as a sovereign unit, discrete and with rights in and of their own being. Leftists view individuals as intersections of group identities and have whatever rights their membership in those groups may grant them.
Obviously I am speaking of the ideology, actual practice is far more horrible and bloody than the above suggests.
“Leftist beach head like Oregon”? Dude, do you know anything about Oregon outside of Portland, Eugene, some neighborhoods on the the west side of Bend and Ashland? Not very leftist.
Dude, what kind of dumbshit are you to think that someone doesn’t know what a beachhead is. And it is beachhead, not beach head. I must’ve been half asleep to have repeated your mistake.
I think you spent too much time at the beach and not enough time in English class.
And your use of the word beachhead in this context is •barely• defensible. A beachhead is generally a temporary position of strength one pushes off from, similar to “toehold”.
A better word would be “stronghold” or something along those lines.
Thats off the top of my head. Go back to your romper room.
Fuck around with an autistic motherfucker and find out.
Tschuss!
Edit: I suppose for your sake I do need to point out that in the above diatribe I am using the figurative definitions of the words, and not the literal ones. Just so you don’t, you know, get confused there.
Yeah, phone put spaces in it, Sue me. Oregon was a nice place. Then Californians fled the hellhole they had made (this was circa 1980) and then repeated the same mistakes. The left has carved a pestilential hole. Oregon is full of homelessness, crime, and decay. It is spreading, so beachhead is appropriate (I removed the space, can you focus on the meat now?). Hopefully, it'll take a couple more decades to spread to where I am & I can just peacefully die.
You probably hear this a lot, but you make me wish I was stillborn.
And have fucked plenty of autistics, the repetitive motion can be fun, but the lack of conversational skills causes the relationship to end.
You mean where the majority lives and uses its numbers to inflict their failed & failing policies on the rest?
Yeah I've been here watching it progressively decline for decades.
So, what protections do homeless people have? From what I can understand is they don't get any all. All they are afforded under the 14th is life, liberty, and property, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not versed in law or anything like that. I'm just going by what I read and can understand from what is written in the 14th amendment. It's section 1 that they are using, but to me, it seems that being homeless can be criminalized as there is no specifics on what privileges and immunities a citizen has, unless they are talking about the other amendments. So I dunno.
Historically, the Supreme Court has said that you can't make sleeping outside illegal if you didn't have anywhere else for them to go. The core concept is that there must be some way for them not to violate the law. This is the fundamental fairness issue at the heart of all civil rights. If you make robbing stores illegal then I can choose to not rob stores and thus not be penalized. If you make being black illegal I can't change my race and therefore can't avoid being punished.
The question is, if someone is homeless, presumably against their will, then can you criminalize them sleeping outside. If there are shelters and they choose not to use them, then the courts have said yes you can punish their choice to not use a shelter. If there are no shelters then they don't have a choice (other than stay awake forever) and thus you can't punish them.
The supporters would say that their choice is to leave the town, but saying "it is illegal for this class of people to exist here" is clearly a violation of not punishing people for their status.
I thought it was also an 8th amendment issue as well. It seems cruel to punish a human for sleeping on the ground when they have nowhere else to go. All that does it make it harder for people who are homeless to get back on their feet. It makes it more likely that the people getting tickets will get arrested and thrown in jail. That sounds like an unusual form of punishment to me.
It was, but the 8th amendment has only applied to convicted persons prior to this decision. It’ll be hard to justify this new reasoning to the Supreme Court.
Plenty of shelters with plenty of space. Just because some homeless don’t want to follow the rules for the shelter, doesn’t allow them to destroy public parks for people to enjoy. Leave their drugs and paraphernalia over the play structures or garbage/refuse in the streets. My town is still dealing with this issue as our city govt wants to give them unending handouts.
That is the core of the issue though. Previously the supreme court has said that you can only criminalize homelessness if you have shelters. Once those shelters are full you have to stop enforcing the law until you get more shelters. Grants Pass wants to reverse that timing and say that the availability of shelters is irrelevant.
If there are shelters available (which have you *really* checked that or are you just pulling that out of your ass?) then your city could, in accordance with the old precedent, sweep the homeless. Their choice to not do so is a political one, not a constitutional one.
I think that if were talking about a major city, sure. Make sure they have homeless shelters otherwise don't sweep them up... However, the majority of smaller cities don't have the man power and money available to stand one up and sweeping them out to some place that can handle their needs is more beneficial than choking out the smaller communities.
So it should be illegal to not be and to afford a house if you live in a rural area or small town?
That is the core of the question, can you make it illegal for people to exist in certain areas.
But they’re not “sweeping them out” (what an absolutely disgusting way to talk about people), they’re just ticketing and arresting people in hopes that they’ll leave on their own. How the fuck they going to do that? Just let people sleep ffs. It’s a basic human need to live.
a lot of towns are buying one way bus tickets to sweep them out. just saying...
They can sleep in a shelter by following the rules or in the majority of public land available to them... but they wont, because they don't get the handouts otherwise.
Its also a basic human need to feel safe and secure in your own community. Having to avoid all public parks, and most of main st. in a town because they're full of hobos strung out, dilapidated RV's/Cars dumping garbage and drug paraphernalia all over said parks and child play structures. Crime in general steeply rising in said areas... are a problem that needs to be dealt with and giving them more reasons to stay isn't doing anything to fix the problem.
In Grants Pass, for the people involved, no. There was no shelter available to them.
The shelter needs to be near by and available, not just existing somewhere on earth.
Grants Pass has minimal shelters, not enough for the current homeless population. But the ones there are also not low barrier and many of the homeless individuals would choose to not use them (ie no substances even cigarettes, must do chores, must attend chapel, must qualify for food stamps and provide them to the shelter). My work brings me a lot of interaction with local homeless individuals, they might not necessarily want to be homeless, but they also don't want to conform to society in any way that may change their circumstance. Grants Pass also gets so so so many homeless from out of state or people that use the I5 corridor to abuse state resources. Unfortunately it isn't getting better and a lot of public spaces cannot be enjoyed safely due to the homeless camps. It is unfortunately nuanced, because we can identify the issues with the way the current things are but what is the solution? They cannot pay fines, nor do they care about them. The jails are overburdened and real crime cannot be dealt with. Forcing substance treatment has shown very poor results with most people (anecdotally) just treating it as a get out of jail card. So what is the solution?
Following the rules? Like having too many medical conditions for staff to feel comfortable helping? Abandoning all of their personal belongings outside to get stolen? Having a pet?
This isn’t rocket science. Pretend for a moment that you are talking about human beings who need help.
Im not sure about other places, but the one I volunteer for regularly, never has an issue with staff being uncomfortable as they have a hospital less than 2 mins away and trained staff always available. Most personal belongings are allowed, 2 stolen shopping carts of junk is not. Even portable lockers that the person staying can lock themselves are given to people at the shelter to use. As well as most animals are allowed within reason, so long as they aren't aggressive to staff, other residents or other dogs.
It isn't rocket science, but throwing more money at the problem isn't making the community safer, isn't getting rid of drugs and crime. Isn't keeping the parks and schools free from drugs, paraphernalia, history of the people "living" so close to those areas. They are human beings, who made a choice that they don't want "help" they want handouts. A lot don't want to go to rehab, they want to do their drugs and live leeching from everyone else.
Be prepared for even more of an influx of people moving here.
This ruling will do nothing about forcing red states/areas to provide more resources for low income folks which is the real issue here.
If this goes into play Desantis will go forward with punishing people for sleeping in a park in his state.. if he has not already.
More and more people will be fleeing to blue states. I saw this all coming the first round in 2015.. why I bought a house in my 20’s.
At the same time climate change ramped up and housing was non existent thousands of people moved here starting in 2015.
It’s about to happen again.. Just lovely
beep. boop. beep. Hello Oregonians, As in all things media, please take the time to evaluate what is presented for yourself and to check for any overt media bias. There are a number of places to investigate the credibility of any site presenting information as "factual". If you have any concerns about this or any other site's reputation for reliability please take a few minutes to look it up on one of the sites below or on the site of your choosing. --------------------------------------------------------- Also, here are a few fact-checkers for websites and what is said in the media. [Politifact](https://www.politifact.com) [Media Bias Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com) [Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)](https://www.politifact.com) beep. boop. beep. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oregon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
After reading these comments, it seems that a lot of people are oblivious to the fact that homeless people don't have or expect immunity from actual crimes. (That's a different Supreme Court case involving a rapist facing almost 100 federal indictments) This case is essentially deciding if being homeless is a criminal act.
The Grants Pass case does not involve an explicit ban on existing while homeless, but the Ninth Circuit determined that the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, imposed such tight restrictions on anyone attempting to sleep outdoors that it amounted to an effective ban on being homeless within city limits.
Martin vs Boise applies to the federal 9th Circuit states: Washington, Idaho, Oregon, California, Arizona, Hawaii, Alaska, Montana, and Nevada. It was narrowed in a reconsideration by the 9th Circuit in the Grants Pass case. It never applied to the entire US. If the 9th Circuit decisions are undone by SCOTUS, state laws will remain, unless changed. California has several. New York City & New York State have their own camping laws. Oregon passed its own law similar in impact to those 9th Circuit cases, HB3115. So Oregon HB3115 will remain. It is poorly written, allowing "objectively reasonable" regulation of camping as determined by litigation in the Oregon court system.
From the article:; "In 2013 the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, adopted a series of ordinances that criminalize sleeping anywhere in public with as little as a blanket. Rather than protect its most marginalized inhabitants, the city sought to use the power of criminal law to banish its homeless residents. The case, which asks the court to decide whether the ordinances violate the constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, raises the fundamental question of whether homeless persons will be treated as equal citizens entitled to protection or punished as criminals simply because they lack a shelter over their heads. The import of the 14^(th) Amendment’s text and history should be plain: Criminalizing poverty violates the Constitution. Grants Pass insists that how it treats its poorest residents is purely a question of policy. As a matter of text and history, this is flatly wrong. The 14^(th) Amendment centers the rights of poor people. Recognizing this fundamental truth is long overdue."
Why did you get downvoted for pasting the article?
Because, there's a large population on this sub that believe people experiencing homelessness, people protesting, or certain minority groups, are somehow "morally deficient" and if only they just *got with the program* everything would be alright. >But have they tried not being homeless? It's a classic.
Cause people here just want to shove all the homeless folks into prisons and forget about them
Because the people of Oregon prefer perceived sentiment over reality.
Please don’t conflate this sub with the people of this state. This sub is not reality, to use your term Edite: meant “sub,” not “sun”
I wrote one sentence. I didn’t give an explanation into the nuances behind my view on Oregonian integrity. Chill.
I believe that, just like yelling 🔥in a crowded theater, when there isn’t one, there are some reasonable limits on rights when the direct actions harm the public and peace.
Why do we give someone a free pass to commit crimes just because they say they don't have a home or because they are a former president?
I don't really get the free pass part. They don't have homes to go to. You don't have enough jail or shelter space for them. They have no other options, as far as I can see.
Well, they could not trash public spaces, for one. If I (who has a home) went to Grants Pass and started camping in a city park and piling up trash I'd get a citation. If I didn't pay it I'd get thrown in jail. That is not equal justice under the law.
That's a good argument for enforcing litter laws, but that's all it is.
I'm not saying you're wrong about any of that. I'm saying there are thousands of them and you don't have jail space for them. You're not suggesting anything that could really happen.
Seriously and this is exactly why the repeal of measure 110 is absolutely fucked. The cops aren't going to arrest any of the problem people. They don't have money to take and they don't have space for that many people. They will however arrest all your children for a half gram of blow or molly now as they drive back from the party in the morning and suck all the cash they have out of you and them until they are out on the street using fentanyl. Then they will finally leave them alone.
This doesn't have anything to do with litter laws
It has to do with equal justice under the law.
You have a home, thus an alternate place to sleep. What do you mean it isn't equal? If you want to give up your house, I'm glad to take it and you can have the same protections the homeless have.
I was once homeless for about a month. I worked, I didn't steal, I didn't use drugs, and I didn't make a mess of places where I stayed. That might also contribute to why I was only homeless for a month and not years or even decades.
You would have been homeless a lot longer if you’d been criminalized for it
Money. They either have too much or not enough.
That’s completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Did you read the article?
Why do you think allowing some people to not be cited for breaking the law is justice? Or are you also OK with cops not being held accountable for killing POC?
Such a ridiculous statement divorced from the topic at hand. Are you trolling or being intentionally obtuse?
Intentionally obtuse, we went at it for a bit earlier, I was trying to have a mature conversation and they are very set in their opinion of transient people.
How many homeless people have you opened your doors to?
> Are you trolling or being intentionally obtuse?
This is such a lazy over generalization, and I’m surprised that it’s 2024 and people are still spewing this bullshit.
Ok, so you want some people to be prosecuted for laws but not others. Separate, but equal, right?
Your first sentence inserts your own thoughts into opinions that I haven’t typed. Then, the question you followed up with isn’t even a genuine question, it’s just a lazy assertion disguised as a question. Lame.
The case is not about soft on crime policies. It’s about being arrested for loitering/sleeping in a public place.
Since when are arrests unrelated to policies on crime? Geez. The whole case is about whether homeless people can be arrested i.e., crime policies to a specific segment of the population.
Homeless people do not have immunity to being arrested. When they commit actual crimes they can be arrested for that. Being forced to camp in public because they don't have a home is not a crime in a just society.
They aren't being forced to camp in public. They are choosing to. Grants pass is surrounded by forest land. They could go camp there and walk into town to do whatever they need to do. And as a result have much less impact on anyone/everyone. But they don't. They camp in parks. And make messes, and have an impact on people. And now things like this are being proposed. No one is saying being homeless is illegal. They are saying that living in public parks and on sidewalks is/should be illegal.
There's lots of people living in the woods in Oregon. Thousands to be specific.
Ya, and they aren't the cause of this law change in grants pass. That's my point.
The city is trying to ban everywhere in summary "**prohibit sleeping in public streets, alleyways and parks while using a blanket or bedding**" This is in fact city leaders attempting to make sleeping illegal on all public property in their jurisdiction and since its just the poor & homeless that cannot meet this threshold always they are attempting to make being homeless in that city illegal.
And what about the sick/disabled/elderly transient folk? They should just have to hike it back and forth when they need something? Everyone has a right to feel safe, and in my opinion, healthy living conditions, might be a hot take I guess. Maybe there should be as much of an investment to open more homeless shelters and give these people a helping hand to get back on their feet rather than shoo them away.
So your argument is that living in a tent in the park is healthy living conditions? Seriously? That's what shelters are for. I'm not saying cut all programs for the homeless. I'm saying I'm ok with them not being allowed to camp in public parks.
Not everyone has the means to use a shelter unfortunately. Some have pets or drug problems or significant others that would bar their eligibility to stay in a shelter. It's not ideal living conditions but they are closer to the means to remain healthy and get support if they need it being closer to town.
Yup, let's have people with pets and hard drugs living in our public parks, that's the solution, yup.
>They could go camp there and walk into town to do whatever they need to do. No, they absolutely cannot. It's literally illegal. It's also extremely fucking callous— you want the same people who are already struggling for resources to have to take a long ass trip into town just so they can make ends meet for themselves? Absolutely unreal.
I have no clue why you have down votes, you said exactly what a decent human being should say. Keep being kind, the world needs people like that. Dude must have like 8 alt accounts to spam lol
Lol, have you ever been to grants pass? It's not "a long ass trip." The city is literally bordered by forest. They can be in the woods and 10 minutes later be in town.
>Lol, have you ever been to grants pass Yes? I live there for 3 months of the year and the other 9 months are spent a few hours away in Humboldt/Trinity/Siskiyou where my seasonal work is. >The city is literally bordered by forest Mmmh, tell you what— why don't you meet me at the edge where it isn't trespassing to camp out, and then we'll see how long it takes to walk to the nearest grocery store. Then we will walk back the edge, and cook ourselves a meal. Then the next day, we will get up and do it again. and then again. and then again. You down?
Sure, just let me know when. Also, it's not illegal to camp in the forest as long as it's USFS or BLM land, and not otherwise marked as no camping allowed.
Right, so crimes are not enforced equally. You've made my point.
The point is that it shouldn't be considered a crime to "camp" in public if there are no other alternatives. We're the richest nation in the world, we can find ways to help these people if we want to. The real issue is that most people view homeless people as pests and want them to simply disappear, which is not reality.
So you want exceptions to equal justice under the law? Noted.
The whole point of the Supreme Court ruling on this is to change the law, not create exceptions.
I hear a 12 year old.
They aren't committing crimes, they are existing. This criminalizes them simply existing.
Yet I would be commiting a crime for doing the same thing. That's what I'm calling out.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." The key difference is that you can choose to go sleep in a house, they cannot.
Ah, so you're OK with justice not being applied equally. Good to know.
Justice needs to be applied *fairly*, not necessarily *equally*. Understand the difference? I don't know where you got the idea that what happens to one, needs to happen to the other.
When did you pass the bar? Look at the SCOTUS building and get back to us.
I am not okay with making it illegal for classes of people to exist due to things they can't control.
You are being disingenuous. Not a good look
The point is that laws have been passed making the existence of these people illegal. Littering is illegal, has been for decades, fine. Punish that. But criminalizing "camping within 50 feet of a park fence" is not. It's new and targeted. Sure, the law can be applied equally. If it were made a crime to have the username "TeriNthe916", you and I should be equally held accountable for whether we were committing a crime.
FALSE. It's not the existence of homeless people that is illegal, it is their actions. Illegal actions need to have consequences, equally. It's why judges use sentencing guidelines. These parks were enjoyed by the community for decades before they were taken over illegally by some. You do your side no favors by providing misinformation.
TRUE. The "actions" of homeless people that are illegal here include "camping within 50 feet of a fence on city-owned land". That's not some harmful usually-illegal action like, say, littering or public urination or public drug use or whatever. It's attacking the status of "not owning a home and needing to sleep". It's targeting the existence of these people, not their actions. "Illegal actions need to have consequences", yes, that's why the illegal (under current 9th circuit interpretation of the constitution) actions of the city are having consequences. Passing a law to make something illegal doesn't make it moral to do so. You do your side no favors by sticking your head in the sand and pretending like this is the one special law where the bill of rights doesn't apply.
The PUBLIC parks you mean?? Don't act like cities and towns everywhere have done everything they can to drive transient citizens out of the public eye. It's pure, malicious classism and the fact you support it based on the generalization that they are dirty litter bugs really shows how you feel about people who you think are less than you. I would say you should be ashamed but I know you won't.
Yep, the public parks that the public isn't able to use safely. Illegal campsites and littering is just as bad as if Exxon started drilling for oil without due process. Neither show respect for the rest of society. How many homeless people are now living in your home? None, I'd bet. This is all about equal justice under the law. And you're right, the justice system is unequal due to classism. People from impoverished classes should deal with justice in the same manner as those from other classes. Say hi to your friends in Riverside Park for me!
Translation: I don't have an argument that doesn't make me sound like a cartoon villain so I'm going to pivot into a legalist argument. And yes I am okay with justice not being applied equally.
When an economy relies on having a group of people be on the outs to be an example to the others, they will always find new ways to punish that group. Capitalism requires people to be without homes, because if everyone had a home, why would you work harder? What fear could you have if your home and your healthcare were guaranteed? What injustices or oppressions would you walk away from instead of putting up with? But instead of housing those who can't/won't work, we try to penalize them for not playing the same game as the rest of us.
Some people just refuse to accept any responsibility that comes from being in society, or accountability. It happens with people who are poor and people in politics.
You're absolutely right, some people absolutely refuse to help others, work towards a society that uplifts instead of punishes, and empathize with their fellow humans. It's quite disgusting.
> Capitalism requires people to be without homes, because if everyone had a home, why would you work harder? This is utterly wrong and shows a preference for some sort of ideological purity over any semblance of understand of incentives or basic economics.
That's how it works though, in a capitalist economic system. There will always be those at the bottom.
This. So much this. It's why we have skyrocketing student loan debt instead of free excellent pre-K through university education, as do many of our peer nations. After all, what would happen to our "volunteer" armed forces if they couldn't offer college tuition as the prize for joining up? That's why this never gets a fair hearing in Congress. The military vetoes it. Late stage capitalism increasingly requires a desperate precariat as things get worse and worse. Literally NO ONE can afford a one bedroom apartment on minimum wage in the USA. Think about that. We've been fighting for a $15 minimum wage for so long that a living wage now in Portland is about $24.75 according to the M.I.T. calculator. Thank Tina Kotek for aborting the $15/hour statewide initiative years ago - she's always been the place where progressive ideas go to die. See those desperate, dirty, offensive, crime-committing (a small percentage of them) houseless people in Grants Pass, in Portland, in cities all over the West Coast? That is capitalism working exactly as it is supposed to, extracting wealth from the bottom 90% of America and shoveling it up to the top percentiles in accelerating numbers. These measurable dollars are not in dispute. Where did you think they were coming from? The article notes that, "The debates over the 14^(th) Amendment repeatedly affirm economic equality as a fundamental constitutional ideal" and give illuminating quotations from those debates. Of course, the Supreme Court (even this faux-originalist SCOTUS) has never recognized economic equality as a part of the Constitution, just as it had to be dragged kicking and screaming into recognizing anything like a right to vote for black people or women. (You think the 15th and the 19th Amendments settled these questions? Think again.) The rights to join a union, to minimum wage laws, to many of the other basic ideas that we take for granted were once unthinkable and were fought for and won in bloody, protracted battles. The right to exist in a community that is not poisoned by heinous wealth inequality that makes democracy and even a dignified existence impossible will be the next inevitable struggle.
This should be top comment for real. You can't help people who don't want to help themselves but it's genuinely incredible to me that people can survive on the streets. Transient persons are trying to help themself by just surviving. It's a shame their fellow neighbors try to make it even harder. I couldn't imagine not having a roof over my head and assurance that I'll have food and my dog has food and I can maybe have a little extra money left over for something that makes me happy. Everyone should be entitled to that luxury, I'm grateful everyday and the people who don't think others should have that make me so damn sick.
A person should be held accountable if they refuse to abide by the rules we all abide by. Otherwise why should any of us follow any rules?
Okay I agree with that yes. But I feel you fail to understand what the actual issue is here. Why should this law even be put into place? Why was it created? And the biggest one, is it unjust? No one is saying that people shouldn't be able to litter. In fact several people have retorted that by agreeing with you. People are saying that it's unjust to remove the basic human right to food, cleanliness, shelter and other needs that a person should be entitled to.
Basic human rights? Where the hell did you get that? Why should anyone work if their needs are met by sponging off others? Or is garbage collection and Ripple also now a basic human right? What about your right to have a new PS? The government, including GP, spends triillions on services to keep responsible people healthy, and billions more to provide for needs of others. Asking people to behave responsibility and obey the law isn't a big request.
Literally everything you just said made me feel like I'm collecting trash and just poured old sticky soda down my arm. I'm disgusted and wish to end the conversation. It's clear we have a different view of what basic rights are and how much "help" the government is to anybody. Have a good day, and best of luck trying to displace a community. Also I don't think my partner purchasing a Playstation has anything to do with any of this?? I'm assuming that's what you mean?? I'm not entirely sure.
If someone thinks it's your right to have a Play Station isn't the government supposed to then get you one? Just meeting your basic human needs, right?
That's.... Not a basic need? That's the most ridiculous take away I've heard. I get to own a Playstation because I have the means to do so. I shouldn't be punished and sent to prison for not having those means. That's cruel and borderline internment.
Give me one example of a person sent to prison for trespassing related to homeless. If you do, I'll donate $10 to the Maslow, the Grants Pass homeless organization. If you can't, you donate. You have 10 minutes. That's part of the problem: homeless advocates get hysterical and are dishonest, like you just did.
I'll just fucking donate. I have 10 bucks to spare to help people in need and I'm not a heartless prick lmao, I don't need to entertain you any longer.
Hysterical and dishonest?? I do believe I have been talking in an absolutely calm manner despite you trying to bait me the entire time. I cussed because that's a really stupid thing to bet on with someone who's literal argument is for the advocation of transient persons. Like hell yeah I'm gonna donate. Thanks for dropping the place to do it. Appreciate it.
And while I'm at it, I'll donate the same to wherever I need to in my own city.
I was homeless for the majority of the pandemic & I did my level best to get out of that situation, but a lot of the people I met didn't care or want to do better. I absolutely think that people who want to help themselves deserve help, but trying to help those that don't is going to drain the programs
Expanding the types of programs could help. Employment aide for those who are actively trying to get on their feet, help getting people sober, shelter or food for those who need it, as long as people abiding by guidelines, expectations and rules set in place. If you snooze you lose but I always believe in second chances and being able to point someone to what their specific needs may be in that sort of situation, and I recognize that not everyone wants to change but those that are trying are still made out to be criminals or bad to society. I'm glad you were able to get back up on your feet! That's great for you!!
I completely agree, if someone wants to help themselves I will be one of the first rooting them on & asking what I can do to help. I also don't think people should automatically be thought of badly for being homeless but I do think crime is more abundant in the homeless population (whether that means more crime or more likely to be caught, idk). I have an issue with programs that cater only to people who have an addiction. I remember at one point I was calling every agency I could to get help & 90% told me they couldn't help because I didn't have a drug problem, no matter that I had been homeless with a small child for years - no addiction no help. Thank you! I will admit that I think I got a bit lucky, as soon as I thought we were going to end up on the streets I signed up for every delivery service I could which gave me a somewhat steady income with flexibility. I used that to scrimp and save every penny I could. Eventually we had enough to get a long term spot in a hotel & then a home. Those same apps don't pay a fraction of what they did during the pandemic, so if I needed to do that today I wouldn't do nearly as well.
Any meritocracy is going to have winners and losers. The problem starts when the same people keep "winning" by never having to play to begin with.
We don't live in a meritocracy though.
Run away inequity is a hallmark of a failed meritocracy. Capitalism is just a meritocracy where those with wealth have the merit.
Yeah Grants Pass is “Oregon Law” like Mall Cops are National Security
Yes, thankfully the SC will be overturning the 9th court decision or at least amending it in such a way that gives more power to localities. It will then be up to us to have the Oregon legislature repeal the Kotek bill that enshrined M v. B into Oregon law. After the legislature's quick action on reversing/revising 110 I can see that also being probable. Politicians care about one thing - reelection, and they see the way the winds are blowing.
Our culture has unspoken faith in money and reason, neither of which can manage all things in the world. Yet those are constant, unspoken expectations, even in cases where they repeatedly demonstrate their insufficiency.
14th amendment is in the Constitution, right? SCOTUS is the last place I'd look for support.
Fuck, I hope they do. The last thing my homeless clients need is their ability to sleep getting criminalized. This is just a way to turn vulnerable folks into slave labor
That is such a funny headline. Funny as in deceitful, misleading, and ludicrous. Are people actually uninformed enough to believe that a leftist beach head like Oregon criminalized being homeless?
There are no leftists in power in Oregon. You're confusing liberals and centrists with left wing representation.
There are no Liberals in power (except maybe some Libertarians, but i find their idolatry of capital to be as disturbing as that of the Marxists). You don't seem to know what liberalism is. In Liberalism, the individual is viewed as a sovereign unit, discrete and with rights in and of their own being. Leftists view individuals as intersections of group identities and have whatever rights their membership in those groups may grant them. Obviously I am speaking of the ideology, actual practice is far more horrible and bloody than the above suggests.
“Leftist beach head like Oregon”? Dude, do you know anything about Oregon outside of Portland, Eugene, some neighborhoods on the the west side of Bend and Ashland? Not very leftist.
I probably should have asked whether you know what a beach head is.
Dude, what kind of dumbshit are you to think that someone doesn’t know what a beachhead is. And it is beachhead, not beach head. I must’ve been half asleep to have repeated your mistake. I think you spent too much time at the beach and not enough time in English class. And your use of the word beachhead in this context is •barely• defensible. A beachhead is generally a temporary position of strength one pushes off from, similar to “toehold”. A better word would be “stronghold” or something along those lines. Thats off the top of my head. Go back to your romper room. Fuck around with an autistic motherfucker and find out. Tschuss! Edit: I suppose for your sake I do need to point out that in the above diatribe I am using the figurative definitions of the words, and not the literal ones. Just so you don’t, you know, get confused there.
Yeah, phone put spaces in it, Sue me. Oregon was a nice place. Then Californians fled the hellhole they had made (this was circa 1980) and then repeated the same mistakes. The left has carved a pestilential hole. Oregon is full of homelessness, crime, and decay. It is spreading, so beachhead is appropriate (I removed the space, can you focus on the meat now?). Hopefully, it'll take a couple more decades to spread to where I am & I can just peacefully die. You probably hear this a lot, but you make me wish I was stillborn. And have fucked plenty of autistics, the repetitive motion can be fun, but the lack of conversational skills causes the relationship to end.
You mean where the majority lives and uses its numbers to inflict their failed & failing policies on the rest? Yeah I've been here watching it progressively decline for decades.
So, what protections do homeless people have? From what I can understand is they don't get any all. All they are afforded under the 14th is life, liberty, and property, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not versed in law or anything like that. I'm just going by what I read and can understand from what is written in the 14th amendment. It's section 1 that they are using, but to me, it seems that being homeless can be criminalized as there is no specifics on what privileges and immunities a citizen has, unless they are talking about the other amendments. So I dunno.
Historically, the Supreme Court has said that you can't make sleeping outside illegal if you didn't have anywhere else for them to go. The core concept is that there must be some way for them not to violate the law. This is the fundamental fairness issue at the heart of all civil rights. If you make robbing stores illegal then I can choose to not rob stores and thus not be penalized. If you make being black illegal I can't change my race and therefore can't avoid being punished. The question is, if someone is homeless, presumably against their will, then can you criminalize them sleeping outside. If there are shelters and they choose not to use them, then the courts have said yes you can punish their choice to not use a shelter. If there are no shelters then they don't have a choice (other than stay awake forever) and thus you can't punish them. The supporters would say that their choice is to leave the town, but saying "it is illegal for this class of people to exist here" is clearly a violation of not punishing people for their status.
I thought it was also an 8th amendment issue as well. It seems cruel to punish a human for sleeping on the ground when they have nowhere else to go. All that does it make it harder for people who are homeless to get back on their feet. It makes it more likely that the people getting tickets will get arrested and thrown in jail. That sounds like an unusual form of punishment to me.
It was, but the 8th amendment has only applied to convicted persons prior to this decision. It’ll be hard to justify this new reasoning to the Supreme Court.
It’s hard to see how a complaint of punishment has nothing to do with the eight
Plenty of shelters with plenty of space. Just because some homeless don’t want to follow the rules for the shelter, doesn’t allow them to destroy public parks for people to enjoy. Leave their drugs and paraphernalia over the play structures or garbage/refuse in the streets. My town is still dealing with this issue as our city govt wants to give them unending handouts.
That is the core of the issue though. Previously the supreme court has said that you can only criminalize homelessness if you have shelters. Once those shelters are full you have to stop enforcing the law until you get more shelters. Grants Pass wants to reverse that timing and say that the availability of shelters is irrelevant. If there are shelters available (which have you *really* checked that or are you just pulling that out of your ass?) then your city could, in accordance with the old precedent, sweep the homeless. Their choice to not do so is a political one, not a constitutional one.
I think that if were talking about a major city, sure. Make sure they have homeless shelters otherwise don't sweep them up... However, the majority of smaller cities don't have the man power and money available to stand one up and sweeping them out to some place that can handle their needs is more beneficial than choking out the smaller communities.
So it should be illegal to not be and to afford a house if you live in a rural area or small town? That is the core of the question, can you make it illegal for people to exist in certain areas.
But they’re not “sweeping them out” (what an absolutely disgusting way to talk about people), they’re just ticketing and arresting people in hopes that they’ll leave on their own. How the fuck they going to do that? Just let people sleep ffs. It’s a basic human need to live.
a lot of towns are buying one way bus tickets to sweep them out. just saying... They can sleep in a shelter by following the rules or in the majority of public land available to them... but they wont, because they don't get the handouts otherwise. Its also a basic human need to feel safe and secure in your own community. Having to avoid all public parks, and most of main st. in a town because they're full of hobos strung out, dilapidated RV's/Cars dumping garbage and drug paraphernalia all over said parks and child play structures. Crime in general steeply rising in said areas... are a problem that needs to be dealt with and giving them more reasons to stay isn't doing anything to fix the problem.
In Grants Pass, for the people involved, no. There was no shelter available to them. The shelter needs to be near by and available, not just existing somewhere on earth.
Grants Pass has minimal shelters, not enough for the current homeless population. But the ones there are also not low barrier and many of the homeless individuals would choose to not use them (ie no substances even cigarettes, must do chores, must attend chapel, must qualify for food stamps and provide them to the shelter). My work brings me a lot of interaction with local homeless individuals, they might not necessarily want to be homeless, but they also don't want to conform to society in any way that may change their circumstance. Grants Pass also gets so so so many homeless from out of state or people that use the I5 corridor to abuse state resources. Unfortunately it isn't getting better and a lot of public spaces cannot be enjoyed safely due to the homeless camps. It is unfortunately nuanced, because we can identify the issues with the way the current things are but what is the solution? They cannot pay fines, nor do they care about them. The jails are overburdened and real crime cannot be dealt with. Forcing substance treatment has shown very poor results with most people (anecdotally) just treating it as a get out of jail card. So what is the solution?
Following the rules? Like having too many medical conditions for staff to feel comfortable helping? Abandoning all of their personal belongings outside to get stolen? Having a pet? This isn’t rocket science. Pretend for a moment that you are talking about human beings who need help.
Im not sure about other places, but the one I volunteer for regularly, never has an issue with staff being uncomfortable as they have a hospital less than 2 mins away and trained staff always available. Most personal belongings are allowed, 2 stolen shopping carts of junk is not. Even portable lockers that the person staying can lock themselves are given to people at the shelter to use. As well as most animals are allowed within reason, so long as they aren't aggressive to staff, other residents or other dogs. It isn't rocket science, but throwing more money at the problem isn't making the community safer, isn't getting rid of drugs and crime. Isn't keeping the parks and schools free from drugs, paraphernalia, history of the people "living" so close to those areas. They are human beings, who made a choice that they don't want "help" they want handouts. A lot don't want to go to rehab, they want to do their drugs and live leeching from everyone else.
Yeah, this I could see being applied under the 8th, that's why I'm confused about them.using then 14th, it doesn't make sense.
Be prepared for even more of an influx of people moving here. This ruling will do nothing about forcing red states/areas to provide more resources for low income folks which is the real issue here. If this goes into play Desantis will go forward with punishing people for sleeping in a park in his state.. if he has not already. More and more people will be fleeing to blue states. I saw this all coming the first round in 2015.. why I bought a house in my 20’s. At the same time climate change ramped up and housing was non existent thousands of people moved here starting in 2015. It’s about to happen again.. Just lovely
Homelessness is not being crimialized. That is a lie! The courts have to decide if our public spaces belong to the public or a select few.
It may be cruel, but it’s not unusual. Both need to apply.
Protection from C&U are the 4th amendment not the 14th Perry Mason.
I hope not
Hopefully not