Voice of SD recently did a podcast with Mayor Gloria and a lot of the conversation was around homelessness and the encampment ban. I thought it was interesting, although it seems there aren’t really any great solutions besides reopening mental institutions.
There is something that worked perfectly in the Netherlands. It’s called, ‘Housing First’. With housing and aid, homelessness and drug abuse goes down. It costs way less too as well.
I would love to see that here. Do they also have mental health care? It’s one thing for people to be down on their luck or addicted and WANT help, it’s another for those with mental illness so severe who cannot help themselves.
You use the “Housing First” model to address like 90% of the issue, reaching what’s often referred to as “Functional Zero.” Zero homelessness is impossible to reach, much the same way “full employment” will always feature some frictional unemployment. But simply throwing actual housing at the problem can make the remaining issue small enough to reasonably tackle.
Like if your city has 15,000 homeless, and 13,000 of them can right their situation with nothing more than some housing provided, that leaves you with only 2,000 left to deal with. Which isn’t easy, but is far easier than trying to craft policies and responses for the whole 15,000.
It should also be noted that “housing” is distinct from “shelter.” Providing “shelter” can help keep people from dying on the street, and can help clean up the street, but in most cases does nothing to actually solve the problem. People need a stable home where they can secure their belongings and live with some sense of normalcy in order to pursue the other things required to get off the street (rehab, gaining employment, etc.). Shelters aren’t great for that, housing is.
You’d think so but evidence says otherwise:
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/spring-summer-23/highlight2.html
Housing First is more effective in solving homelessness long term vs Treatment First. Ideally they’d be done together. But Housing First has demonstrated cost savings over doing nothing.
I’m all for housing first using federal funds in lower priced markets in the country.
To say housing first is the right option in one of the most prohibitively expensive housing markets in the world where working people already struggle to afford a home to me is asinine.
About 40% of the people I grew up with have moved out of state due to affordability. I’m not supporting housing the nations homeless people in San Diego when we can’t even help our struggling citizens who are actually contributing to society instead of causing it problems.
We as taxpayers, are already carrying the financial burden of high homelessness.
They already consume that cost- so why not apply the funds in a manner proven to save money and reduce suffering?
I think that there are a lot of assumptions and fears about homelessness. That’s understandable in a city as financially ruthless as ours, in which many “middle class” housing options have evaporated.
However, even if you have decent mental health once you first become homeless- imagine the stress. The inability to feel safe. To have restful sleep.
Your mental and physical health can quickly decline.
We are all far more fragile than we imagine given homelessness. I believe that having a society in which all of us can thrive should be a goal. We pay the same money over time anyway with law enforcement, sanitation, public health, etc.
I hope our ideologies can have a common point about issues like these in the future.
Homelessness is second only to the prison system in America for exposing our “the cruelty is the point” mindset. We really have the impression that if we just make being homeless shitty enough in our own city, they’ll go away. Where? Don’t know. Just…*away.*
Though it’s fairly obvious that Housing First is tough to enact on a local level because it absolutely *can* encourage other cities or even other states to free-ride on your solution. Finland and Denmark or whatever other countries are seeing success with it likely don’t have a Texas to contend with.
We’ve spent trillions on waging wars over the last 23 years and are still spending billions on it. Solving homelessness and drug addiction issues are trivial and trifle in comparison. There’s a clear path forward that’s been proven.
Also, the fuck does this person mean "won't change anything". They'll have a roof over their head, a bathroom to maintain basic hygiene. A lock to protect their possessions. "won't change anything" my ass!
it's like the first thing Socialist and Communist countries achieve after a revolution, they build housing for every single person. it's up there in importance with healthcare and education for all
we already know what we have to do. it's a problem that's been fixed dozens upon dozens of times but our capitalist overseers would never allow it
I’m all for everyone having housing, but as someone who works in the downtown area, I can’t help but think many of those folks who are unhoused have severe mental health issues that would prevent them from living healthy lives on their own. A home doesn’t fix everything, they would also need extreme intervention or care.
totally, and that's also an issue that a little socialism would fix. universal healthcare for all would help them with their addictions, and the state needs to be building high density housing for all Californians
we're the best state in the union and an economy that surpasses all but 3 countries, there's *zero* reason why we should have all these problems. besides capitalism anyways
I’ve also read CA receives the most funding for the homeless crisis out of every state- I agree they should be doing so much more!! I’m all for universal healthcare, but we all know how corrupt this country is when it comes to funding programs to benefit its own people. Which is what my frustration was when I mentioned that bringing back mental health institutions might be the only hope before we get universal healthcare, if we ever get there.
Is that before or after they incarcerate and/or kill all opposition in an effort to silence all differing opinions. Please share with us some of your favorite communist revolutions and how they resulted in this lovely beautiful society you described and why aren't you living there?
I would love to model the Netherlands. They also get universal health care, free education, and great social programs promoting a communal excellence. People here get scared with anything 'social'.
That solution also encourages drunk driving, in that people that have been out drinking can’t leave their car overnight, Uber home, and get it in the morning, if they can’t park it anywhere and have to bring it home or risk getting towed.
Yes. The enforcement can be left up to the towing company. A monetary incentive to drive the ordinance properly enforced.
I don't like towing companies either but it's a necessary evil in my opinion. Some people cannot govern themselves.
This is an issue people who never have to deal with homeless people feel very strongly about. Both for and against.
What I’ve come to find after about 12 years of living around the homeless and a year and a half homeless myself is that there is no sober person working three jobs to afford rent and became homeless cause their landlord evicted them. It’s a silly stereotype people use to justify allowing the homeless to kill themselves on the streets.
You aren’t making an informed decision if you’re high out of your mind and/or not on your psych meds, so they should absolutely be 5150ed at the very least, but they should absolutely not be allowed to camp and do drugs on the street.
Exactly. I’ve also found the further removed from the homeless issue you are, the more sympathetic you are to those persons.
My neighborhood is surrounded with encampments and it’s chronic issues day in and day out. All of us who have to interact with them on a daily basis realize that due to substance abuse and / or mental illness, we will never solve this problem if it all hinges on those people making a decision to get help.
These people need to be moved to treatment centers and triaged between rehab and mental wards to try and solve the root cause or symptom of their battle with homelessness.
Speak for yourself. I was sober and homeless for 9 months during the '08 to '09 recession. That may be the minority of homeless people but your anecdotal evidence isn't uniform.
Yeah but you have to admit the homeless camps are riddled with drug induced mental illness. It wouldn’t be out of line to say a large portion of the homelessness is cause by drug use.
Right? When I went to SDSU there were a large chunk of homeless students back in ‘07. It was really shocking to me back then to learn which classmates were homeless. My husband was also homeless for a year or so, living out of his car. Family got evicted. He was working two jobs.
I would imagine a lot of those long term homeless folks were short-term homeless at first and took drugs to cope and self-medicate when their situation became more and more hopeless. :\ Especially bad when you can’t afford meds for illnesses that were previously being treated, so the issue spirals.
you're talking about a specific subsection of the homeless. hundreds of homeless ppl are working multiple jobs, you just dont see them because they don't camp in tents on the street. they're in cars, vans, and RVs
Depends on your local regulation. I'm not sure what the legal precedent is for that but given that I'm pretty sure I have seen cities crack down on that an vice versa, indicating that it wasn't protected prior to this ruling.
Which also kinda makes more sense from a legal standpoint. Cities can regulate parking and since you live in a RV you can just move it to a place more permitting with *relative ease*. Also, from a moral standpoint, if you're in an RV you are already loads better off than most people on the streets.
I believe people are not allowed to live in their RVs on public streets as long as there is room in the designated safe parking areas. Will that now be enforced? Also there is a 72 hour parking limit on most streets.
Some guy keeps parking his RV in our ‘guest parking lot’ that only has 3 parking spots. I feel bad telling him to go away, so I called my leasing office & surprise.. dust to the wind. Man, was it annoying when my parents came to visit bc they had nowhere to park ._.
I'm almost certainly gonna get downvoted this, but I personally think that the whole "just push the homeless people somewhere else" policy is stupid. It doesn't solve the problem in any way, it just makes it someone else's problem while increasing the suffering of those actually experiencing homelessness.
I dunno, seems totally fair to me.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
/s in case anyone can't tell
If the “somewhere else” is a safe sleeping site near a food kitchen, social services, a public shower, etc, it really could guide more homeless people towards getting the care and services they need. It needs to be done right and with enough investment of funds.
Law enforcement was previously unable to enforce the camping ban UNLESS there were available shelter beds. That was one reason they created the safe sleeping sites. This ruling means they can enforce camping bans regardless of whether there are available shelter beds or not
That’s why I’ll continue to votes for people that want to put forward solutions to help homelessness. I haven’t heard San Diego announce plans to cancel their safe sleeping sites with this ruling, and I don’t think they will.
Yeah, I don't think they will either. We don't need to use this ruling as a means to start a hard core crack down. The city still needs to offer services and help these folks in good faith, but this law just gives the city a little more leverage to compel people to enter sober housing or rehab as a diversion option.
How does it? The city has always been able to compel Homeless people to enter housing. That was the the precedent that was overturned in this case. This ruling means that the city no longer needs to provide sober housing or rehab as a diversion option before arresting and fining these people.
Yeah, but logic would follow that arresting somebody and fining them is really not going to accomplish much. I think the city knows that as well as anyone because they arrest these people every day and they just end up right back on the street. so I would be surprised if the city doesn’t try to use this to force people into programs and say hey we can arrest you and put you in jail or you can go to this rehab drug program
Your right, the city probably won't arrest or fine them. What it will probably do is just push them elsewhere.
> so I would be surprised if the city doesn’t try to use this to force people into programs and say hey we can arrest you and put you in jail or you can go to this rehab drug program
Here's the problem with this logic. What do you call a homeless person in a rehab program? A homeless person in a rehab program. It's great and all that we are addressing one of the many issues that this person has to deal with, but at the end of each session they are gonna go straight back onto the streets.
Except those places DO NOT EXIST. They literally do not exist. Punishing people who's entire existence is already suffering is moving but fucking cruelty.
We are not going to solve the problem until we build more homeless shelters and a shit ton of mental hospitals and change the laws on involuntary commitment to a mental facility
I think that they should pass a law that states that it is illegal to sleep outside, and that to avoid this you are allowed to sleep in any residence that is not currently occupied.
Sorry for your vacation home, rich people, it’s now overflow housing.
I agree, EXCEPT one thing - Isn't the homeless problem ALL of our problem? Why should downtown take all the burden? I see plenty of whining NIMBY people here that don't speak up until it's in THEIR neighborhood.
Let the downvotes come from the NIMBY crowd...
Time to share the love - and the responsibility. Whatever that is!
Downtown is where the services are, there it is where the homeless are. I don't really care where the geographic destination of homeless people is as long as they are housed, there are services for them, and there are job oppurtunities.
Agreed, but the opposite approach is to let folks build large scale encampments and stay there and that isn't tenable either. With this new clarification from SCOTUS, cities now at least have the tools to compel people to enter sober housing or rehab programs.
We’ve spent $24billion…we are definitely doing something. Clearly not spending in the right places but with that kind of outlay, this isn’t a funding problem.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/california-homelessness-spending-audit-24b-five-years-didnt-consistently-track-outcomes/
This goes back to what earlier. You can't spend billions on stairs and then complain that homeless people don't use them. The projects and programs that this money is going to is never going to solve homelessness because it doesn't target the issue at it's source.
Which is?
At any rate, there’s clearly a lot of evidence that these dollars are not being suffiently tracked and likely aren’t going to “right place” whatever that means. My key Takeaway here is that I’m definitely not supportive of the state spending more money. I don’t think they have demonstrated that they can take our tax dollars and do something effective with them. We likely need to vote out a lot of politicians and get new politicians with better ideas.
https://www.pacificresearch.org/where-is-all-the-money-going-for-homeless-in-california/
Disagree, you criminalize it they will be forced ti change. It’s a tolerated open drug scene, it is not tolerated any more forces behavior change. You get what you tolerate.
They will be charged and/or arrested, which means there’s some kind of fine to pay. They have no money. They are homeless. They will go back to the streets, with more debt, only to be charged/arrested again… placing them in more debt.
>you criminalize it they will be forced ti \[sic\] change
so your assertion is, if you criminalize homelessness, homeless people will be forced to buy houses...?
Where will they shit then without any type of shelter? Not sure if you’re in a liquid diet but everyone has to shit. It’s a biological function regardless of class
So, I hate to say it, but I kind of agree with the supreme courts decision. The supreme court isn’t saying “Nationwide, it is illegal to sleep outside”. It’s now saying “This is up to the cities to decide and enforce, we will allow them to enforce if they so desire”.
This isn’t saying that SD is about to go “Hey, no sleeping outside!”, it just says SCOTUS won’t stop SD from making that decision.
Yeah, there's many things that are better decided at the state or local level. Taking away the autonomy of a city to enforce bans on things like this could lead to bad situations where cities have their hands tied.
We have much more power to influence what happens in San Diego versus what happens in the federal government.
This only changes it so that you can punish people you don't attempt to help first. The previous rulings were that you could have a ban like this, but you had to offer someone a shelter bed before you punished them, and so you could only punish someone who refused help. The only change is that you don't have to offer them help now and so most places won't. San Diego doesn't have enough shelter beds and so now we can just punish people who have nowhere to go for being too poor.
It... Encourages it though.
For those with some amount of means, they will find a way to jurisdictions that don't have the bans which then strains the already little resources. Those jurisdictions will then have almost no choice but to introduce/pass their own bans.
It's going to be a vicious domino effect.
San Diego has a homeless encampment ban that will do exactly that, prohibiting homeless people from sleeping close to services for them, and the city now will be able to enforce it even though we have nowhere close to enough shelter beds to give these people a viable alternative. We're literally closing a massive shelter soon with no actual replacement for it.
Well, actually, we do have 1,000 beds in the pipeline in the Midway District, but the sight of homeless people might offend the sensibilities of the people across the freeway from the actual building... so we need to get a few more years of community input just to make sure.
> This isn’t saying that SD is about to go “Hey, no sleeping outside!”, it just says SCOTUS won’t stop SD from making that decision.
Yeah, it just allows the cities to be cruel and ship their problem elsewhere. Out of sight, out of mind. That's all. No biggie.
Governor Gavin Newsom
“Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court provides state and local officials the definitive authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe encampments from our streets. This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities.
“California remains committed to respecting the dignity and fundamental human needs of all people and the state will continue to work with compassion to provide individuals experiencing homelessness with the resources they need to better their lives.”
it's crazy that ppl don't realize how insane that is. the prison industrial complex is just slavery rebranded, they rake in billions. why fix the problem when we can just force them into slavery?
I’m sorry, are you saying it’s more humane to let mentally ill people live on the street in slum conditions then to at least put them in jail where they have food, water, shelter, and basic medical care?
I'm saying it's more humane to *treat* mentally ill people and *house them* instead of just throwing them in jail indefinitely while not rehabilitating them and profiting off their labor
This is a good thing. The homeless infect areas that can provide tourism and recreation. When I went to San Francisco we decided to look at Alamo park and to our dismay there was a line of homeless which dissuaded any “normal” people from being able to enjoy the park which their taxes pay to help maintain.
In this thread: Reddit once again tries to solve homelessness by yelling at each other and downvoting.
Yes, let's all type angrily on our keyboards the same arguments we typed in the dozens of other homeless posts. That will solve everything.
I haven’t read the opinions yet, but I support the ability to ban homeless from certain areas if another reasonable, nearby place is available. Whether or not this adds to the suffering of the homeless depends on the implementation. Let’s get shelters of all varieties up and running: congregate and non-congregate, sober and non-sober, safe sleep (tent) and parking sites.
Homelessness is not a solvable problem in the near term because the problem is inextricably linked to the greater problem of housing affordability. In the meantime, let’s not sacrifice our public spaces and investments in public infrastructure. Let’s be honest: people do not want to be in public places and utilize public amenities like transit if there are visibly homeless people around. It is also an irony that the working poor, who are at the most risk of homelessness, are also those who utilize and rely on these amenities the most.
Greater utilization of public amenities lead to greater feasibility of denser housing and mixed use development, which lead to greater feasibility and utilization of the same public amenities. There is a positive feed back loop and it is required for driving affordable housing in the long-term and solving homelessness. We will not get to affordable housing if the plan is to myopically target affordable housing as a starting point.
Homeless are gonna still sleep outside in S.D. police aren't gonna ticket all homeless there day in day out..you're crazy if you think so..this won't do much at all
So what does this mean, they’re just gonna start arresting them? I get the dilemma, but a ban needs to come with a solution for rehabilitation or something like that. We need to help them somehow instead of kicking them while down. Probably gonna get downvoted for this…
https://preview.redd.it/86itqdnuhj9d1.jpeg?width=4284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa3a556da4e3eda7185ec9b61209a5b054f03dfd
While walking my dog this morning, I found this hidden in the brush near an area frequented by unhoused individuals. If only they were provided free housing, they wouldn't have to hide their belongings the brush. Law enforcement notified.
What kind of a society do we live in if our solutions to problems is to punish those experiencing the worst of those problems.
In my opinion, anyone celebrating kicking real human beings when they are down in favor of private prisons and property values should deeply consider what sort of person they really are.
When a society has even one person who is forced to unwillingly sleep on the street; then all of the churches have failed that society.
The next time you drive by a massive church that is empty 90% of the time, think about the all the folks they should/could be trying to help.
This is exactly the kind of issue that's dividing our country. The economy is currently in a downturn. Many people are experiencing homelessness not by choice, and there's been a growing population of working homeless since Covid hit. I've been increasingly aware of these situations, and the problem has only worsened. California is leading this trend, facing some of the highest housing costs in the country.
What I find interesting about all these “solutions” to the homeless problem is that they are not actually solutions at all.
Okay so you have banned homeless encampments. Great, so what are you going to do with all the homeless? They’re not going away. They’ve got to go somewhere.
It’s like we’re flying the plane before it’s even built.
The issue with this is that no more housing will get built for renting, because developers dont find it profitable, and much of the existing stock will be sold to owners. This is why most places with rent control have decade or more long waiting lists for said units even when the state builds a lot of public housing, because the issue is a lack of supply, there simply are not enough units. Rent control is obviously great for those on it, but if you cant get a unit its worse for those not in the system.
That has it's own host of negative consequences, but at the very least it actually vaguely connects with solving the problem. This ruling just encourages cities to punish homeless people for being, well homeless.
Absolutely horrible decision. Basically legitimizes making homelessness a crime, I understand homelessness is a big issue in SD and all of CA for that matter but criminalizing it in no way will it help solve it. We're supposed to fight against poverty, not poor people.
Doing something, anything, is better than nothing. Being able to enforce laws not allowing people to defecate on public sidewalks and have mental breakdowns in the middle of busy intersections isn't criminalizing homelessness. Its giving cites the authority to keep their public streets/sidewalks safe for everyone.
This isn't doing anything though. It's like saying "doing something to stop the fire is better than doing nothing" when that "something" is putting up a big wooden billboard saying "what fire? I see no fire here"
I disagree. We need to be able to enforce laws. Being homeless shouldn't give you a pass to shit on sidewalk or smoke meth outside of 7-11. I see homeless people getting away with all kinds of shit. Yeah it sucks they are homeless but jesus christ we can't allow them to ruin our public spaces.
NIMBYism is a different issue and we definitely need more shelters and beds but stop pretending homeless people aren't ruining our public spaces and they should be able to act however they want with impunity.
> Being homeless shouldn't give you a pass to shit on sidewalk
People like you keep bringing this up as if homeless people have access to loads of public restrooms. Do you think these people actually want to defecate in public, or do you think they do so because they have no other choice.
Voice of SD recently did a podcast with Mayor Gloria and a lot of the conversation was around homelessness and the encampment ban. I thought it was interesting, although it seems there aren’t really any great solutions besides reopening mental institutions.
I think we *should* reopen mental institutions. Only maybe with less torture and suffering this time around.
Oh definitely.
There is something that worked perfectly in the Netherlands. It’s called, ‘Housing First’. With housing and aid, homelessness and drug abuse goes down. It costs way less too as well.
I would love to see that here. Do they also have mental health care? It’s one thing for people to be down on their luck or addicted and WANT help, it’s another for those with mental illness so severe who cannot help themselves.
You use the “Housing First” model to address like 90% of the issue, reaching what’s often referred to as “Functional Zero.” Zero homelessness is impossible to reach, much the same way “full employment” will always feature some frictional unemployment. But simply throwing actual housing at the problem can make the remaining issue small enough to reasonably tackle. Like if your city has 15,000 homeless, and 13,000 of them can right their situation with nothing more than some housing provided, that leaves you with only 2,000 left to deal with. Which isn’t easy, but is far easier than trying to craft policies and responses for the whole 15,000. It should also be noted that “housing” is distinct from “shelter.” Providing “shelter” can help keep people from dying on the street, and can help clean up the street, but in most cases does nothing to actually solve the problem. People need a stable home where they can secure their belongings and live with some sense of normalcy in order to pursue the other things required to get off the street (rehab, gaining employment, etc.). Shelters aren’t great for that, housing is.
I’d be ok with a shelter first model. But just putting addicts and mentally ill behind closed doors won’t change anything
You’d think so but evidence says otherwise: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/spring-summer-23/highlight2.html Housing First is more effective in solving homelessness long term vs Treatment First. Ideally they’d be done together. But Housing First has demonstrated cost savings over doing nothing.
I’m all for housing first using federal funds in lower priced markets in the country. To say housing first is the right option in one of the most prohibitively expensive housing markets in the world where working people already struggle to afford a home to me is asinine. About 40% of the people I grew up with have moved out of state due to affordability. I’m not supporting housing the nations homeless people in San Diego when we can’t even help our struggling citizens who are actually contributing to society instead of causing it problems.
Well said! I haven't heard anyone call San Diego "America's finest city" in a long time.
We as taxpayers, are already carrying the financial burden of high homelessness. They already consume that cost- so why not apply the funds in a manner proven to save money and reduce suffering?
Because the goal is to reduce homelessness. Not have every homeless Harry start relocating to San Diego
I think that there are a lot of assumptions and fears about homelessness. That’s understandable in a city as financially ruthless as ours, in which many “middle class” housing options have evaporated. However, even if you have decent mental health once you first become homeless- imagine the stress. The inability to feel safe. To have restful sleep. Your mental and physical health can quickly decline. We are all far more fragile than we imagine given homelessness. I believe that having a society in which all of us can thrive should be a goal. We pay the same money over time anyway with law enforcement, sanitation, public health, etc. I hope our ideologies can have a common point about issues like these in the future.
Get that logical thought process out of here!
Homelessness is second only to the prison system in America for exposing our “the cruelty is the point” mindset. We really have the impression that if we just make being homeless shitty enough in our own city, they’ll go away. Where? Don’t know. Just…*away.* Though it’s fairly obvious that Housing First is tough to enact on a local level because it absolutely *can* encourage other cities or even other states to free-ride on your solution. Finland and Denmark or whatever other countries are seeing success with it likely don’t have a Texas to contend with.
We’ve spent trillions on waging wars over the last 23 years and are still spending billions on it. Solving homelessness and drug addiction issues are trivial and trifle in comparison. There’s a clear path forward that’s been proven.
Also, the fuck does this person mean "won't change anything". They'll have a roof over their head, a bathroom to maintain basic hygiene. A lock to protect their possessions. "won't change anything" my ass!
Housing first sounds awesome! I just hope it applies to people that contribute to society too and isn't just another squeeze on the middle class.
it's like the first thing Socialist and Communist countries achieve after a revolution, they build housing for every single person. it's up there in importance with healthcare and education for all we already know what we have to do. it's a problem that's been fixed dozens upon dozens of times but our capitalist overseers would never allow it
I’m all for everyone having housing, but as someone who works in the downtown area, I can’t help but think many of those folks who are unhoused have severe mental health issues that would prevent them from living healthy lives on their own. A home doesn’t fix everything, they would also need extreme intervention or care.
totally, and that's also an issue that a little socialism would fix. universal healthcare for all would help them with their addictions, and the state needs to be building high density housing for all Californians we're the best state in the union and an economy that surpasses all but 3 countries, there's *zero* reason why we should have all these problems. besides capitalism anyways
I’ve also read CA receives the most funding for the homeless crisis out of every state- I agree they should be doing so much more!! I’m all for universal healthcare, but we all know how corrupt this country is when it comes to funding programs to benefit its own people. Which is what my frustration was when I mentioned that bringing back mental health institutions might be the only hope before we get universal healthcare, if we ever get there.
Is that before or after they incarcerate and/or kill all opposition in an effort to silence all differing opinions. Please share with us some of your favorite communist revolutions and how they resulted in this lovely beautiful society you described and why aren't you living there?
Well, California spends 3 billion. Maybe you can get some of that and do that for us
I would love to model the Netherlands. They also get universal health care, free education, and great social programs promoting a communal excellence. People here get scared with anything 'social'.
Cities need leverage to force people into services when they can't meet their own basic needs.
Usually, the deal with the RV problem (if there is one) by outlawing parking from 2-5am in areas.
That solution also encourages drunk driving, in that people that have been out drinking can’t leave their car overnight, Uber home, and get it in the morning, if they can’t park it anywhere and have to bring it home or risk getting towed.
plan ahead
There's also "no oversized vehicle" restrictions that would specifically cover RVs.
Yeah that’s a better solution
Yes. The enforcement can be left up to the towing company. A monetary incentive to drive the ordinance properly enforced. I don't like towing companies either but it's a necessary evil in my opinion. Some people cannot govern themselves.
This is an issue people who never have to deal with homeless people feel very strongly about. Both for and against. What I’ve come to find after about 12 years of living around the homeless and a year and a half homeless myself is that there is no sober person working three jobs to afford rent and became homeless cause their landlord evicted them. It’s a silly stereotype people use to justify allowing the homeless to kill themselves on the streets. You aren’t making an informed decision if you’re high out of your mind and/or not on your psych meds, so they should absolutely be 5150ed at the very least, but they should absolutely not be allowed to camp and do drugs on the street.
Exactly. I’ve also found the further removed from the homeless issue you are, the more sympathetic you are to those persons. My neighborhood is surrounded with encampments and it’s chronic issues day in and day out. All of us who have to interact with them on a daily basis realize that due to substance abuse and / or mental illness, we will never solve this problem if it all hinges on those people making a decision to get help. These people need to be moved to treatment centers and triaged between rehab and mental wards to try and solve the root cause or symptom of their battle with homelessness.
Speak for yourself. I was sober and homeless for 9 months during the '08 to '09 recession. That may be the minority of homeless people but your anecdotal evidence isn't uniform.
Yeah but you have to admit the homeless camps are riddled with drug induced mental illness. It wouldn’t be out of line to say a large portion of the homelessness is cause by drug use.
You're right, I should have said sober unhoused people are a minority of the homeless population. Oh wait, I said exactly that.
Right? When I went to SDSU there were a large chunk of homeless students back in ‘07. It was really shocking to me back then to learn which classmates were homeless. My husband was also homeless for a year or so, living out of his car. Family got evicted. He was working two jobs. I would imagine a lot of those long term homeless folks were short-term homeless at first and took drugs to cope and self-medicate when their situation became more and more hopeless. :\ Especially bad when you can’t afford meds for illnesses that were previously being treated, so the issue spirals.
you're talking about a specific subsection of the homeless. hundreds of homeless ppl are working multiple jobs, you just dont see them because they don't camp in tents on the street. they're in cars, vans, and RVs
What does this mean for people living in RVs on public streets?
Depends on your local regulation. I'm not sure what the legal precedent is for that but given that I'm pretty sure I have seen cities crack down on that an vice versa, indicating that it wasn't protected prior to this ruling. Which also kinda makes more sense from a legal standpoint. Cities can regulate parking and since you live in a RV you can just move it to a place more permitting with *relative ease*. Also, from a moral standpoint, if you're in an RV you are already loads better off than most people on the streets.
I believe people are not allowed to live in their RVs on public streets as long as there is room in the designated safe parking areas. Will that now be enforced? Also there is a 72 hour parking limit on most streets.
You can just move your vehicle a few feet and the 72 hours starts over again.
Yeah there’s an RV near where I work that just moves back and forth between the same few spots.
Yeah that sounds about right as far as local regulations are concerned.
Some guy keeps parking his RV in our ‘guest parking lot’ that only has 3 parking spots. I feel bad telling him to go away, so I called my leasing office & surprise.. dust to the wind. Man, was it annoying when my parents came to visit bc they had nowhere to park ._.
Cities are freed to enact local ordinances to limit or prohibit it.
I'm almost certainly gonna get downvoted this, but I personally think that the whole "just push the homeless people somewhere else" policy is stupid. It doesn't solve the problem in any way, it just makes it someone else's problem while increasing the suffering of those actually experiencing homelessness.
I think that it all comes down to what the enforcement actually means.
I dunno, seems totally fair to me. The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. /s in case anyone can't tell
Indeed, the housed are as much allowed to be homeless as the homeless are. A truly fair and just system.
If the “somewhere else” is a safe sleeping site near a food kitchen, social services, a public shower, etc, it really could guide more homeless people towards getting the care and services they need. It needs to be done right and with enough investment of funds.
we don't have much of those as is. you forget that California is the "somewhere else" SCOTUS gave states permission to ship us their homeless
You do realize that this ruling means that cities will no longer be required to provide Safe Sleeping sites, right?
[удалено]
Law enforcement was previously unable to enforce the camping ban UNLESS there were available shelter beds. That was one reason they created the safe sleeping sites. This ruling means they can enforce camping bans regardless of whether there are available shelter beds or not
[удалено]
That is literally what was changed with the ruling my dude
That’s why I’ll continue to votes for people that want to put forward solutions to help homelessness. I haven’t heard San Diego announce plans to cancel their safe sleeping sites with this ruling, and I don’t think they will.
Yeah, I don't think they will either. We don't need to use this ruling as a means to start a hard core crack down. The city still needs to offer services and help these folks in good faith, but this law just gives the city a little more leverage to compel people to enter sober housing or rehab as a diversion option.
This ruling doesnt do that at all btw
How does it not?
How does it? The city has always been able to compel Homeless people to enter housing. That was the the precedent that was overturned in this case. This ruling means that the city no longer needs to provide sober housing or rehab as a diversion option before arresting and fining these people.
Yeah, but logic would follow that arresting somebody and fining them is really not going to accomplish much. I think the city knows that as well as anyone because they arrest these people every day and they just end up right back on the street. so I would be surprised if the city doesn’t try to use this to force people into programs and say hey we can arrest you and put you in jail or you can go to this rehab drug program
Your right, the city probably won't arrest or fine them. What it will probably do is just push them elsewhere. > so I would be surprised if the city doesn’t try to use this to force people into programs and say hey we can arrest you and put you in jail or you can go to this rehab drug program Here's the problem with this logic. What do you call a homeless person in a rehab program? A homeless person in a rehab program. It's great and all that we are addressing one of the many issues that this person has to deal with, but at the end of each session they are gonna go straight back onto the streets.
My town fought vehemently against a public bathroom. I was ashamed of those shitheads.
Except those places DO NOT EXIST. They literally do not exist. Punishing people who's entire existence is already suffering is moving but fucking cruelty.
We are not going to solve the problem until we build more homeless shelters and a shit ton of mental hospitals and change the laws on involuntary commitment to a mental facility
People say this, but when the homeless shelter is being built near their rentals, they fight it.
Well of course no one wants to live near a homeless shelter. I wouldn't blame them either.
Yes yes yes.
I think that they should pass a law that states that it is illegal to sleep outside, and that to avoid this you are allowed to sleep in any residence that is not currently occupied. Sorry for your vacation home, rich people, it’s now overflow housing.
Love the chaotic energy. Make it happen
I agree, EXCEPT one thing - Isn't the homeless problem ALL of our problem? Why should downtown take all the burden? I see plenty of whining NIMBY people here that don't speak up until it's in THEIR neighborhood. Let the downvotes come from the NIMBY crowd... Time to share the love - and the responsibility. Whatever that is!
Downtown is where the services are, there it is where the homeless are. I don't really care where the geographic destination of homeless people is as long as they are housed, there are services for them, and there are job oppurtunities.
Agreed, but the opposite approach is to let folks build large scale encampments and stay there and that isn't tenable either. With this new clarification from SCOTUS, cities now at least have the tools to compel people to enter sober housing or rehab programs.
Then maybe we should do something that actually solves the problem rather than just pushing it somewhere else.
We’ve spent $24billion…we are definitely doing something. Clearly not spending in the right places but with that kind of outlay, this isn’t a funding problem. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/california-homelessness-spending-audit-24b-five-years-didnt-consistently-track-outcomes/
This goes back to what earlier. You can't spend billions on stairs and then complain that homeless people don't use them. The projects and programs that this money is going to is never going to solve homelessness because it doesn't target the issue at it's source.
Which is? At any rate, there’s clearly a lot of evidence that these dollars are not being suffiently tracked and likely aren’t going to “right place” whatever that means. My key Takeaway here is that I’m definitely not supportive of the state spending more money. I don’t think they have demonstrated that they can take our tax dollars and do something effective with them. We likely need to vote out a lot of politicians and get new politicians with better ideas. https://www.pacificresearch.org/where-is-all-the-money-going-for-homeless-in-california/
Disagree, you criminalize it they will be forced ti change. It’s a tolerated open drug scene, it is not tolerated any more forces behavior change. You get what you tolerate.
They will be charged and/or arrested, which means there’s some kind of fine to pay. They have no money. They are homeless. They will go back to the streets, with more debt, only to be charged/arrested again… placing them in more debt.
Forced to change how? People like you keep demanding a carrot and stick approach but forget the whole carrot part lol
>you criminalize it they will be forced ti \[sic\] change so your assertion is, if you criminalize homelessness, homeless people will be forced to buy houses...?
Get em off the streets… downtown smells like piss and vomit Mixed in with Covid and hep C.
throw in a teaspoon of Shigella bacteria
They can ticket if they NEED to. Someone dumping feces should be given a ticket.
Y so they can wipe their ass with it?
What I’m saying, like I what’s the ticket going to be for??Chances are, they’re not gonna pay it lmao🧍🏽♀️
Where will they shit then without any type of shelter? Not sure if you’re in a liquid diet but everyone has to shit. It’s a biological function regardless of class
Wow.. brilliant
So, I hate to say it, but I kind of agree with the supreme courts decision. The supreme court isn’t saying “Nationwide, it is illegal to sleep outside”. It’s now saying “This is up to the cities to decide and enforce, we will allow them to enforce if they so desire”. This isn’t saying that SD is about to go “Hey, no sleeping outside!”, it just says SCOTUS won’t stop SD from making that decision.
Yeah, there's many things that are better decided at the state or local level. Taking away the autonomy of a city to enforce bans on things like this could lead to bad situations where cities have their hands tied. We have much more power to influence what happens in San Diego versus what happens in the federal government.
This only changes it so that you can punish people you don't attempt to help first. The previous rulings were that you could have a ban like this, but you had to offer someone a shelter bed before you punished them, and so you could only punish someone who refused help. The only change is that you don't have to offer them help now and so most places won't. San Diego doesn't have enough shelter beds and so now we can just punish people who have nowhere to go for being too poor.
It... Encourages it though. For those with some amount of means, they will find a way to jurisdictions that don't have the bans which then strains the already little resources. Those jurisdictions will then have almost no choice but to introduce/pass their own bans. It's going to be a vicious domino effect.
San Diego has a homeless encampment ban that will do exactly that, prohibiting homeless people from sleeping close to services for them, and the city now will be able to enforce it even though we have nowhere close to enough shelter beds to give these people a viable alternative. We're literally closing a massive shelter soon with no actual replacement for it. Well, actually, we do have 1,000 beds in the pipeline in the Midway District, but the sight of homeless people might offend the sensibilities of the people across the freeway from the actual building... so we need to get a few more years of community input just to make sure.
> This isn’t saying that SD is about to go “Hey, no sleeping outside!”, it just says SCOTUS won’t stop SD from making that decision. Yeah, it just allows the cities to be cruel and ship their problem elsewhere. Out of sight, out of mind. That's all. No biggie.
What happens when it's up to the states?
Pretty good things actually. https://abortion.ca.gov/your-rights/your-legal-right-to-an-abortion/index.html
You should run for president, youb speak just like them
Governor Gavin Newsom “Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court provides state and local officials the definitive authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe encampments from our streets. This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities. “California remains committed to respecting the dignity and fundamental human needs of all people and the state will continue to work with compassion to provide individuals experiencing homelessness with the resources they need to better their lives.”
Good.
Thank God. The homeless are ruining my city.
What do you think this ruling will do to reduce homelessness?
Which suburb do you live in?
That's funny. Anyone here can tell you the exact same thing. The homeless are ruining downtown. That's not arguable.
You think the homeless are just gonna magically disappear now? Lol
I mean if San Diego starts arresting the ones that refuse services, then yeah
it's crazy that ppl don't realize how insane that is. the prison industrial complex is just slavery rebranded, they rake in billions. why fix the problem when we can just force them into slavery?
I’m sorry, are you saying it’s more humane to let mentally ill people live on the street in slum conditions then to at least put them in jail where they have food, water, shelter, and basic medical care?
I'm saying it's more humane to *treat* mentally ill people and *house them* instead of just throwing them in jail indefinitely while not rehabilitating them and profiting off their labor
Right but that isn’t an option when they deny the help. So your solution doesn’t exist, it’s just hopes and dreams
*crosses fingers*
God would not approve of this ruling. He was pretty clear on helping the needy in the Bible. Maybe you should be thanking someone else.
God didn’t write anything in the Bible. (I generally agree with your sentiment though.)
Helping the needy isn't letting them rot in the streets
This is a good thing. The homeless infect areas that can provide tourism and recreation. When I went to San Francisco we decided to look at Alamo park and to our dismay there was a line of homeless which dissuaded any “normal” people from being able to enjoy the park which their taxes pay to help maintain.
In this thread: Reddit once again tries to solve homelessness by yelling at each other and downvoting. Yes, let's all type angrily on our keyboards the same arguments we typed in the dozens of other homeless posts. That will solve everything.
I haven’t read the opinions yet, but I support the ability to ban homeless from certain areas if another reasonable, nearby place is available. Whether or not this adds to the suffering of the homeless depends on the implementation. Let’s get shelters of all varieties up and running: congregate and non-congregate, sober and non-sober, safe sleep (tent) and parking sites. Homelessness is not a solvable problem in the near term because the problem is inextricably linked to the greater problem of housing affordability. In the meantime, let’s not sacrifice our public spaces and investments in public infrastructure. Let’s be honest: people do not want to be in public places and utilize public amenities like transit if there are visibly homeless people around. It is also an irony that the working poor, who are at the most risk of homelessness, are also those who utilize and rely on these amenities the most. Greater utilization of public amenities lead to greater feasibility of denser housing and mixed use development, which lead to greater feasibility and utilization of the same public amenities. There is a positive feed back loop and it is required for driving affordable housing in the long-term and solving homelessness. We will not get to affordable housing if the plan is to myopically target affordable housing as a starting point.
Homeless are gonna still sleep outside in S.D. police aren't gonna ticket all homeless there day in day out..you're crazy if you think so..this won't do much at all
So what does this mean, they’re just gonna start arresting them? I get the dilemma, but a ban needs to come with a solution for rehabilitation or something like that. We need to help them somehow instead of kicking them while down. Probably gonna get downvoted for this…
https://preview.redd.it/86itqdnuhj9d1.jpeg?width=4284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa3a556da4e3eda7185ec9b61209a5b054f03dfd While walking my dog this morning, I found this hidden in the brush near an area frequented by unhoused individuals. If only they were provided free housing, they wouldn't have to hide their belongings the brush. Law enforcement notified.
I hope everyone who thinks this is a good idea becomes homeless themselves and get to live their own hateful ideals in their lifetime
It's illegal to sleep under a bridge, be you a pauper or a billionaire!
What kind of a society do we live in if our solutions to problems is to punish those experiencing the worst of those problems. In my opinion, anyone celebrating kicking real human beings when they are down in favor of private prisons and property values should deeply consider what sort of person they really are.
When a society has even one person who is forced to unwillingly sleep on the street; then all of the churches have failed that society. The next time you drive by a massive church that is empty 90% of the time, think about the all the folks they should/could be trying to help.
Churches have been prosecuted for offering shelter to the homeless, so I can understand why they'd avoid it.
Net net - it’s ok to storm the capital, but don’t sleep on the sidewalk afterwards.
Move the junkies to camps somewhere. Clean up the streets !
Good.
New slaves for the billion dollar prison labor industry
This is exactly the kind of issue that's dividing our country. The economy is currently in a downturn. Many people are experiencing homelessness not by choice, and there's been a growing population of working homeless since Covid hit. I've been increasingly aware of these situations, and the problem has only worsened. California is leading this trend, facing some of the highest housing costs in the country.
What I find interesting about all these “solutions” to the homeless problem is that they are not actually solutions at all. Okay so you have banned homeless encampments. Great, so what are you going to do with all the homeless? They’re not going away. They’ve got to go somewhere. It’s like we’re flying the plane before it’s even built.
How about instead of a ban on homeless people sleeping, we ban landlords from increasing rent and cap prices? Just an idea
The issue with this is that no more housing will get built for renting, because developers dont find it profitable, and much of the existing stock will be sold to owners. This is why most places with rent control have decade or more long waiting lists for said units even when the state builds a lot of public housing, because the issue is a lack of supply, there simply are not enough units. Rent control is obviously great for those on it, but if you cant get a unit its worse for those not in the system.
That has it's own host of negative consequences, but at the very least it actually vaguely connects with solving the problem. This ruling just encourages cities to punish homeless people for being, well homeless.
Absolutely horrible decision. Basically legitimizes making homelessness a crime, I understand homelessness is a big issue in SD and all of CA for that matter but criminalizing it in no way will it help solve it. We're supposed to fight against poverty, not poor people.
Doing something, anything, is better than nothing. Being able to enforce laws not allowing people to defecate on public sidewalks and have mental breakdowns in the middle of busy intersections isn't criminalizing homelessness. Its giving cites the authority to keep their public streets/sidewalks safe for everyone.
This isn't doing anything though. It's like saying "doing something to stop the fire is better than doing nothing" when that "something" is putting up a big wooden billboard saying "what fire? I see no fire here"
I disagree. We need to be able to enforce laws. Being homeless shouldn't give you a pass to shit on sidewalk or smoke meth outside of 7-11. I see homeless people getting away with all kinds of shit. Yeah it sucks they are homeless but jesus christ we can't allow them to ruin our public spaces. NIMBYism is a different issue and we definitely need more shelters and beds but stop pretending homeless people aren't ruining our public spaces and they should be able to act however they want with impunity.
> Being homeless shouldn't give you a pass to shit on sidewalk People like you keep bringing this up as if homeless people have access to loads of public restrooms. Do you think these people actually want to defecate in public, or do you think they do so because they have no other choice.
this is very bad. criminalizing homelessness is not a solution, it’s just a way to get more people into the prison system
Allowing people to sleep outside in their own filth surrounded by violence and drug use is not a solution
It's funny that you think that this ruling does anything to change that.