7 ms·

You're scandalized a civil liberties organization opposed putting a minority's liberties to a vote? > But in their filing they stated their core opposition to

You're scandalized a civil liberties organization opposed putting a minority's liberties to a vote? > But in their filing they stated their core opposition to the bill in this way: "Moreover, allowing homelessness policy to be established by local initiative would open a floodgate to local initiative and referenda on homelessness, which could be used to further criminalize homelessness or derail action to address affordable housing and homelessness." > In a previous lawsuit where Lowney was in the opposite position -- defending a local initiative to keep it on the ballot -- he argued that "All doubts should be resolved in favor of letting the people vote”, and “any challenges the [opponent] wants to raise will be fully preserved for post-election review”. A lawyer's job is making the strongest case they can for their client. And tactics aren't principles.

haberman 5y ago
> You're scandalized a civil liberties organization opposed putting a minority's liberties to a vote? That is a very creative way of framing a charter amendment that proposed to build 2,000 units of emergency housing for the homeless who are currently sleeping on the streets and in parks. If there was a strong civil liberties argument here, why didn't the ACLU make it? Why did the entire legal argument rest on a claim that the measure conflicts with other state and local laws? The lawsuit did not cite any instances where this charter amendment actually violates any civil liberty of the homeless. The ACLU is part of a progressive establishment that believes that the homeless must be allowed to continue sleeping on the streets and in parks, even if shelter options are available. They believe that we must spend until the homeless are enticed to choose shelter, and if they do not choose it, the only option is to spend more. I am against sweeping homeless camps when no other option is available, but I do not think it is reasonable if parks are occupied by encampments of homeless who have decided not to take offers of shelter.

haberman 5y ago

> You're scandalized a civil liberties organization opposed putting a minority's liberties to a vote? That is a very creative way of framing a charter amendment that proposed to build 2,000 units of emergency housing for the homeless who are currently sleeping on the streets and in parks. If there was a strong civil liberties argument here, why didn't the ACLU make it? Why did the entire legal argument rest on a claim that the measure conflicts with other state and local laws? The lawsuit did not cite any instances where this charter amendment actually violates any civil liberty of the homeless. The ACLU is part of a progressive establishment that believes that the homeless must be allowed to continue sleeping on the streets and in parks, even if shelter options are available. They believe that we must spend until the homeless are enticed to choose shelter, and if they do not choose it, the only option is to spend more. I am against sweeping homeless camps when no other option is available, but I do not think it is reasonable if parks are occupied by encampments of homeless who have decided not to take offers of shelter.