5 ms·

The supreme court agreed to hear this case. So you can pretty much expect cities are going to get what they want as they didn't hear the prior ruling for basic

The supreme court agreed to hear this case. So you can pretty much expect cities are going to get what they want as they didn't hear the prior ruling for basically the exact same thing. The rule right now is before cities can start clearing out people, they have to have enough beds/locations for the homeless. If there's not enough places for the homeless then public camping is legal. (meaning that if cities wanted to clear out the homeless they can build a place for them to stay.)

leotravis10 3y ago
The thought of fining or even jailing the homeless just for being homeless scares me. It's a more like criminalizing the poor and it would be a total waste of taxpayers money.
- CapstanRoller 3y ago
  In the past, workhouses were used to "solve" this problem.
- cogman10 3y ago
  I agree. Why should my money go to a private prison to restrict an "unsightly" person when the same money could buy them a lot cheaper housing facilities? It costs a lot of tax payer money to throw people in jail (especially if it's a private prison). A more humane treatment of the homeless is also a benefit to the tax payer.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    So if it were cheaper, what would you say
    - cogman10 3y ago
      That we should choose the humane route, but I wouldn't raise cost as a reason why. If housing the homeless in prisons is cheap, then a program where they can come and go from a prison but otherwise use it as a sanctuary would not be bad. If we are talking about treating the unhoused as criminals then that's where I take issue.
  - HideousKojima 3y ago
    Until they flood it/burn it down/convert it into a meth lab. People's problem isn't with the homeless in general, it's with the mentally ill and/or drug addicted ones that shit on public transit/street corners and accost strangers and turn public parks into open air heroin dens. Free housing won't help this sort of homeless.
    - CapstanRoller 3y ago
      There are tons of marginally-housed people who are just normal folks who couldn't afford rising rents. You just don't see them because they tend to stay in cars, motels, or couch surf. The people you mention are a tiny visible minority.
- Cheer2171 3y ago
  In California, it costs over $106k/year to house each inmate. About half of that go to paying prison guards and admin. Those are 2021-2 numbers, it is certainly much higher now. Imagine what else could be done with that money. https://lao.ca.gov/policyareas/cj/6_cj_inmatecost https://lao.ca.gov/policyareas/cj/6_cj_inmatecost
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    It costs about $100k to deal with each unhoused person up here in Seattle. Pretty competitive with incarceration costs.
asdff 3y ago
Its a rule that has disproportionately harmed the major cities in the metropolitan regions that are forced to bear the load from other cities in the area with more "move-it-along" type policing of the homeless. Its certainly a thing in LA county that's for sure. You can go to Venice Beach where it borders with the city of Santa Monica, and its pretty telling how things are really shaking out when all the tents are set up on the LA side and the Santa Monica side of the border is free of tents somehow. It builds and builds, until you end up with these small cities having homeless populations that can be sheltered in a single apartment complex type build of say 500-2000 people or so, and then something like the city of LA that might have something like 45000 homeless people. That's a project on an entirely different scale, that's half the population of Burbank right there just in homeless people of shelter space that has to be built in one city by this rule. On top of the existing housing crisis of a lack of places to live for everyone else too. If this is the law set by a federal judge then it seems the federal government should pay for it, if its going to be so amazingly costly for cities to bear this build out.
aksss 3y ago
I'm probably not as cynical about the Court. Their decision not to hear a challenge earlier can also be rooted in "ripeness". If you have a lower court system that can expose some deeper consideration and debate on the attributes of case before it gets to you, it's best to let that play out as much as possible. But obviously there's something in the 9th's position that a consensus feels is worth reviewing. I wouldn't for a minute assume that means the cities get everything they want. Remember that whatever they decide will be the law for five times as many states as the 9th oversees. But likewise, I don't see the 9th's position as very practical in terms how any given city has to implement it. Let's start by recognizing that some homeless are not victims of circumstance. It makes me want to hear the best arguments on both sides.

leotravis10 3y ago

The thought of fining or even jailing the homeless just for being homeless scares me. It's a more like criminalizing the poor and it would be a total waste of taxpayers money.

CapstanRoller 3y ago
In the past, workhouses were used to "solve" this problem.
cogman10 3y ago
I agree. Why should my money go to a private prison to restrict an "unsightly" person when the same money could buy them a lot cheaper housing facilities? It costs a lot of tax payer money to throw people in jail (especially if it's a private prison). A more humane treatment of the homeless is also a benefit to the tax payer.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  So if it were cheaper, what would you say
  - cogman10 3y ago
    That we should choose the humane route, but I wouldn't raise cost as a reason why. If housing the homeless in prisons is cheap, then a program where they can come and go from a prison but otherwise use it as a sanctuary would not be bad. If we are talking about treating the unhoused as criminals then that's where I take issue.
- HideousKojima 3y ago
  Until they flood it/burn it down/convert it into a meth lab. People's problem isn't with the homeless in general, it's with the mentally ill and/or drug addicted ones that shit on public transit/street corners and accost strangers and turn public parks into open air heroin dens. Free housing won't help this sort of homeless.
  - CapstanRoller 3y ago
    There are tons of marginally-housed people who are just normal folks who couldn't afford rising rents. You just don't see them because they tend to stay in cars, motels, or couch surf. The people you mention are a tiny visible minority.
Cheer2171 3y ago
In California, it costs over $106k/year to house each inmate. About half of that go to paying prison guards and admin. Those are 2021-2 numbers, it is certainly much higher now. Imagine what else could be done with that money. https://lao.ca.gov/policyareas/cj/6_cj_inmatecost https://lao.ca.gov/policyareas/cj/6_cj_inmatecost
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  It costs about $100k to deal with each unhoused person up here in Seattle. Pretty competitive with incarceration costs.

asdff 3y ago

Its a rule that has disproportionately harmed the major cities in the metropolitan regions that are forced to bear the load from other cities in the area with more "move-it-along" type policing of the homeless. Its certainly a thing in LA county that's for sure. You can go to Venice Beach where it borders with the city of Santa Monica, and its pretty telling how things are really shaking out when all the tents are set up on the LA side and the Santa Monica side of the border is free of tents somehow. It builds and builds, until you end up with these small cities having homeless populations that can be sheltered in a single apartment complex type build of say 500-2000 people or so, and then something like the city of LA that might have something like 45000 homeless people. That's a project on an entirely different scale, that's half the population of Burbank right there just in homeless people of shelter space that has to be built in one city by this rule. On top of the existing housing crisis of a lack of places to live for everyone else too. If this is the law set by a federal judge then it seems the federal government should pay for it, if its going to be so amazingly costly for cities to bear this build out.

aksss 3y ago

I'm probably not as cynical about the Court. Their decision not to hear a challenge earlier can also be rooted in "ripeness". If you have a lower court system that can expose some deeper consideration and debate on the attributes of case before it gets to you, it's best to let that play out as much as possible. But obviously there's something in the 9th's position that a consensus feels is worth reviewing. I wouldn't for a minute assume that means the cities get everything they want. Remember that whatever they decide will be the law for five times as many states as the 9th oversees. But likewise, I don't see the 9th's position as very practical in terms how any given city has to implement it. Let's start by recognizing that some homeless are not victims of circumstance. It makes me want to hear the best arguments on both sides.