6 ms·

I don't understand how local governments could possibly lack the authority to remove people from public spaces. You can argue all you want about the impact of

I don't understand how local governments could possibly lack the authority to remove people from public spaces. You can argue all you want about the impact of different policies but at the core of the issue is whether or not local governments are allowed to remove people from public spaces. If they lack that power they fundamentally lack the authority to govern in that area.

PheonixPharts 2y ago
But where do homeless people go if removed from public spaces? If homeless can be removed from any public space, and, obviously, can't legally occupy private spaces then that implies being homeless is a criminal activity since there is no space where it can legally happen. I suppose you're proposing prison, but it seems the question as to "whether or not being homeless is a crime" is a least worth a legal discussion.
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  How about: if a shelter exists in the area, and it has free beds, you can't camp in a public park? We have tons of beds here in Boulder shelters(except on the coldest nights when it fills up), but people choose to sleep in parks because you aren't allowed to smoke meth in the shelters.
  - PheonixPharts 2y ago
    That's exactly the issue being debated, or have have you not read the first paragraph?: > the Supreme Court will decide whether it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to fine, ticket, or jail someone for sleeping outside on public property if they have nowhere else to go. The point being argued is "if you don't have adequate shelters, then you can't remove people from public spaces". If you do have shelters and these people have other options than, yes, you can force them from public spaces into community provided shelters.
    - IncreasePosts 2y ago
      From hn guidelines, have you read them? > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article And no, it's not exactly the issue being debated. The issue debated is whether people can camp if there is no shelter space. In my post, I mention the scenario that there is shelter space, but the people who are camping cannot use it based on their behavior.
  - rainsford 2y ago
    That seems like the best compromise to me. Punishing people who truly have no other option rubs me the wrong way. But I'm fine with going after people who do have other options but choose to be a public nuisance, and at the same time such a policy incentivizes the local government actually making sure other options are available.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      The thing is that almost all homeless people have options.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        People with homes also have the option of not whining about homeless people, will they rise to the occasion and seize that opportunity? As is usually the case there's lots of blame to go around, and most everyone expects peak performance from others, but not of themselves and their ingroup.
    - candiodari 2y ago
      And what if the "unavailable options" are unavailable, because of the unavailability of ahem medication options. In other words, if a shelter is availabe, but they get kicked out for drug use? Same with agression, animals, unacceptable collections (either hoarding, or something like a collection of knives), ...? Are we going to "outlaw" homeless people with a dog?
    - nrclark 2y ago
      What does it mean to go after them? You can't exactly fine somebody who doesn't have any money or an address. And our jails are crowded enough without throwing hundreds or thousands more people in there. I read somewhere that it costs around $50k/year to keep somebody imprisoned in the US. Jailing the homeless would get very expensive, very fast.
  - paulmd 2y ago
    Drugs are of course the easy example, but there are plenty of less clear problems. What if the shelter wants to force homeless people to give up their dog before sheltering them? Do you just send those animals to the pound and then euthanize them? That’s what usually happens, the situation for animals is even more dire than for the homeless.
- lend000 2y ago
  For most places, it makes sense that there needs to be shelter spaces available in order to relocate a person. But in reality, there are certain homeless meccas that are much more attractive to homeless people, where the local government cannot reasonably be expected to house all of the homeless people that are imported from elsewhere. In these cases, I am amenable to the idea that you can remove them from public places / and/or export them back out to remove obstructions to public life, but I acknowledge it's very difficult to determine where this idea is reasonable and prevent it from being abused by local governments that are not so disproportionately affected by this problem.
- agent281 2y ago
  Alternatively, there could be some public space where it is legal to be homeless. The area could be fitted with bathrooms and other services. The issues are that cities may be concerned about liability in that space and where you could put that space without angering some residents. Additionally, a lot of homeless people would probably rather have their own space so they would reject a city sanctioned location for homeless people. Unfortunately, it seems like an unlikely solution.
  - PheonixPharts 2y ago
    > there could be some public space where it is legal to be homeless. Of course! And that's precisely what this case is about. It's not saying that city governments should never remove people from public spaces. It's saying if you don't have a space where it is legal to be homeless, only then can you not legally remove homeless people from public spaces.
    - 8f2ab37a-ed6c 2y ago
      Then we're in accord, thanks for clarifying.
  - euniceee3 2y ago
    That is literally what Slab City is. The land belongs to the CA Teachers Union, so it comes down to who will allow for their land to be used for perpetual squatting?
- Aunche 2y ago
  I don't mind homeless people sleeping under a bridge, but they shouldn't be allowed to camp everywhere. If you aren't even allowed to park for 3 hours in a location, why should a homeless person be allowed to camp there indefinitely and throw needles that are difficult to prove are yours?
  - PheonixPharts 2y ago
    Again, the case (and I) am arguing in agreement with you. The point being debated is not about saying homeless can do as they please. It's very specifically arguing you need to give the homeless some place where they can camp out or other wise live. If you had a city that designated all areas under bridges as legal for homeless occupation, then yes those cities would be allowed to remove the homeless from other areas. The entire point of this case boils down to "do homeless people have a right to exist" not "can homeless people sleep on my kids playground if they want". The point being argued that cities have some obligation to take care of their homeless populations and if they refuse to, then they are essentially giving up control of their public spaces. Want a nice downtown? Great, give the homeless sleeping on the streets there some place else to go and yes you can force them to leave.
    - Aunche 2y ago
      Being allowed to camp somewhere is a privilege and not a right. The problem with designating a place where homeless people have a right to camp means that it's substantially more difficult to take action if that area becomes a breeding ground for crime. I suppose that it would be cruel if homeless people actually aren't allowed to camp anywhere, but I believe that in practice, if they're not disruptive, a city isn't going to waste tax dollars on sending them to jail.
      - wolverine876 2y ago
        > I believe that in practice, if they're not disruptive, a city isn't going to waste tax dollars on sending them to jail. I've read about that happening many times. People need rights, not depend on the goodwill of local government and hope; that's why we have a Constitution with limited government and don't depend on the goodwill of a monarch. You wouldn't accept that for your home - they can kick you out any time, but why would they?
- nineplay 2y ago
  This may sound dismissive but at some level the homeless people need to figure out where they should go. A overarching truth off all attempts to give people aid is that you can't make people change when they don't want to. Therapy doesn't help people who aren't invested in it. Rehab doesn't help people who like using drugs. Anger management courses don't help people who find threats of violence give them what they want. Our society gets to make laws and I think laws that prevent people from turning a public space into their permanent camp site aren't unreasonable. My problem is I want to use my library and I'm going to try to solve that problem. I don't know how to solve their problem - but I'm not going to accept that I need to solve it before I get my library back. So far as I can tell a lot of the homeless are not dumb.
  - 8f2ab37a-ed6c 2y ago
    My thesis is that part of the issue is the ruinous empathy that is given to people who ultimately have no plans of getting better, or those who can't take care of themselves and need society to step in with a loving but firm hand. It's the constant giving without expecting anything in return, only exacerbating the free-rider problem that many will take advantage of, in the name of empathy.
    - nineplay 2y ago
      I agree and I think a lot of 'solutions' are going to fail until the people involved acknowledge that kindness and empathy aren't enough. By most accounts there are a lot of homeless people who are living pretty comfortably as far as they're concerned. If I want my library back ( I do ) than I need to find a way to make living in front of it less comfortable for them.
    - Gibbon1 2y ago
      I think it's the opposite, the ruinous callousness that sees able bodied homeless sleeping on the street and thinking they're a problem that needs to be eliminated. Instead of thinking why is an able bodied man or woman not be able to afford to sleep indoors. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/permit-home-building-code-19369323.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/permit-home-building-...
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  > then that implies being homeless is a criminal activity Which it has been in many places and still might be in some. But this has to be combined with some kind of program for them to exist legally.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  > But where do homeless people go if removed from public spaces? Public spaces where theyre not bothering anyone obviously. If you sleep somewhere where no one is bothered then you wont be bothered. If you sleep in a park people want to use the police will be called on you.
couchand 2y ago
Is this the world you wish to live in? Where the greatest concern is not for the provisioning of housing for all but instead the punishment of those who have no other options available?
- lylejantzi3rd 2y ago
  Is this the world you wish to live in? https://archive.is/H6GVE https://archive.is/H6GVE
  - PheonixPharts 2y ago
    Nobody wants to live in that world, including the homeless people in that picture. But the homeless populations are symptoms of larger problem in the society. Simply making homelessness illegal is a far worse world. Those people in the picture will still exist, they'll just be contained in a prison. If, through some unexpected hardship, you found yourself without a home would you consider yourself a criminal worthy of punishment? Or do you consider the fact that you have housing some moral choice you are making in the same way you choose not to steal? The fundamental argument being debated is: if you don't want homeless people in your public space, you need to give them some other option if you are going to force them out of those spaces.
    - lylejantzi3rd 2y ago
      There is no "but" here. Can you suggest a solution that hasn't been tried over and over again for the past 20 years (at least?) Your suggestions have resulted in more homelessness and worse conditions for the homeless.
      - diob 2y ago
        Not sure we can fix it here in the US. It's wild going to a place like Australia and seeing how differently the police and others treat homeless folks there, in short, with compassion. We're just obsessed with car culture, militarized police, and "individualism".
conk 2y ago
In what way does the authority to govern require the ability to remove people from public spaces?
- readyman 2y ago
  State democracy and capitalism. Local electorates are primarily wealthier people with time on their hands, so they overwhelmingly prioritize fighting crime and promoting local commerce, which are efforts that homeless populations are seen as undermining. The result is that punishing homelessness gets politicians re-elected.
- 627467 2y ago
  as long as people wish governing powers to include that ability, that's the way. you find that most (all?) jurisdictions include provisions to remove people from public spaces.
CogitoCogito 2y ago
I guess it would incentivize local governments to decrease housing costs build more housing by removing their ability to sweep the problem under the rug.
toomuchtodo 2y ago
I don’t understand how local governments lack the authority to provide affordable housing, or housing for the homeless. Some citizens are land owners, but all citizens are stakeholders. (TLDR non market housing)
- klysm 2y ago
  They don't lack the authority as far as I know.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    They lack the desire and use funding as an excuse. Where there's a will, there's a way. There's just no real will.
    - readyman 2y ago
      Local electorates are primarily wealthier people with time on their hands, so they overwhelmingly prioritize fighting crime and promoting local commerce, which are efforts that homeless populations are seen as undermining. The result is that punishing homelessness gets politicians re-elected.
- welshwelsh 2y ago
  The purpose of the government is to serve the interests of the taxpayers that fund it. Not to transfer resources from taxpayers to non-taxpayers.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Government exists to serve citizens, regardless of taxes paid. Tax obligation does not buy preferential representation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes_in_the_United_State...
    - readyman 2y ago
krustyburger 2y ago
Ordering someone to return to their home is one thing. The question is more complicated when the person does not have a private residence. “Removing” someone from one spot doesn’t make them cease to exist- they have to then be put somewhere else. Certainly local governments aren’t depositing them onto private property, so the only options are other public property (including jail). I don’t follow why this practice being placed off limits for Constitutional reasons would cause local government to somehow lose its authority to govern. In our system, local governments can’t do plenty of things to their citizens, even in public spaces. Their ability to govern nevertheless remains intact.
V__ 2y ago
Where is the line? When is it homelessness, when loitering, when walking? This will be used to prevent demonstrations, remove other unwanted people or just punish some outgroup.
- readyman 2y ago
  Sleeping on public property is basically how they're measuring this. Just read the article.
klyrs 2y ago
Fundamental right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If you're going to insist that every person must have a roof over their head, and there aren't enough roofs to go around, it doesn't take away that most fundamental right. A just government does not revoke a person's life nor liberty for failing to attain the unattainable.
tennisflyi 2y ago
I mean, it wouldn’t be a public if they could, no?
Vegenoid 2y ago
Local governments shouldn’t be allowed to remove people from public spaces for any reason. There must be a justification, the people must be violating a law. The core of this issue is not about “whether or not local governments are allowed to remove people from public spaces”, it’s “under what scenarios are local governments allowed to remove people from public spaces”. Even if they rule in favor of Johnson, there will still be many scenarios that allow a government to remove people from public spaces.
wolverine876 2y ago
> I don't understand how local governments could possibly lack the authority to remove people from public spaces. We seem to forget these days that we (very thankfully) have rights and live in a free country that recognizes them. People are free individuals, at liberty to do as they please unless there is some strong reason to stop them that is also constitutional, lawful, and follows due process. 'I don't like them' and 'they look/smell/talk funny' aren't sufficient reasons. I don't see how local government has the authority to remove someone from public space except in very limited circumstances. Public space is not the property of local government. You have a right to do what you want there.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  > Public space is not the property of local government. Yes it is? > You have a right to do what you want there. No you absolutely do not have the right to do whatever you want just because its owned by the government.
  - wolverine876 2y ago
    I think you are forgetting the fundamentals of freedom. You are a free person; you can do what you want, for the most part.
throwaway290232 2y ago
[dead]
incomingpain 2y ago
>I don't understand how local governments could possibly lack the authority to remove people from public spaces. I have the fundamental human right of movement. I'm allowed to go wherever is 'public', sidewalks, parks, etc. Government also cant seize my property. For example a tent. Hence the inability for government to violate the homeless' civil rights. Now I go further, what seems quite obvious to me is that it's government's fault for homelessness. Not just local, but combination of government failure. Politicians whose failures are on display with homelessness are really hoping they could tyrannically violate people's civil rights to attempt to hide their own failures.

PheonixPharts 2y ago

But where do homeless people go if removed from public spaces? If homeless can be removed from any public space, and, obviously, can't legally occupy private spaces then that implies being homeless is a criminal activity since there is no space where it can legally happen. I suppose you're proposing prison, but it seems the question as to "whether or not being homeless is a crime" is a least worth a legal discussion.

IncreasePosts 2y ago
How about: if a shelter exists in the area, and it has free beds, you can't camp in a public park? We have tons of beds here in Boulder shelters(except on the coldest nights when it fills up), but people choose to sleep in parks because you aren't allowed to smoke meth in the shelters.
- PheonixPharts 2y ago
  That's exactly the issue being debated, or have have you not read the first paragraph?: > the Supreme Court will decide whether it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to fine, ticket, or jail someone for sleeping outside on public property if they have nowhere else to go. The point being argued is "if you don't have adequate shelters, then you can't remove people from public spaces". If you do have shelters and these people have other options than, yes, you can force them from public spaces into community provided shelters.
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    From hn guidelines, have you read them? > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article And no, it's not exactly the issue being debated. The issue debated is whether people can camp if there is no shelter space. In my post, I mention the scenario that there is shelter space, but the people who are camping cannot use it based on their behavior.
- rainsford 2y ago
  That seems like the best compromise to me. Punishing people who truly have no other option rubs me the wrong way. But I'm fine with going after people who do have other options but choose to be a public nuisance, and at the same time such a policy incentivizes the local government actually making sure other options are available.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    The thing is that almost all homeless people have options.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      People with homes also have the option of not whining about homeless people, will they rise to the occasion and seize that opportunity? As is usually the case there's lots of blame to go around, and most everyone expects peak performance from others, but not of themselves and their ingroup.
  - candiodari 2y ago
    And what if the "unavailable options" are unavailable, because of the unavailability of ahem medication options. In other words, if a shelter is availabe, but they get kicked out for drug use? Same with agression, animals, unacceptable collections (either hoarding, or something like a collection of knives), ...? Are we going to "outlaw" homeless people with a dog?
  - nrclark 2y ago
    What does it mean to go after them? You can't exactly fine somebody who doesn't have any money or an address. And our jails are crowded enough without throwing hundreds or thousands more people in there. I read somewhere that it costs around $50k/year to keep somebody imprisoned in the US. Jailing the homeless would get very expensive, very fast.
- paulmd 2y ago
  Drugs are of course the easy example, but there are plenty of less clear problems. What if the shelter wants to force homeless people to give up their dog before sheltering them? Do you just send those animals to the pound and then euthanize them? That’s what usually happens, the situation for animals is even more dire than for the homeless.
lend000 2y ago
For most places, it makes sense that there needs to be shelter spaces available in order to relocate a person. But in reality, there are certain homeless meccas that are much more attractive to homeless people, where the local government cannot reasonably be expected to house all of the homeless people that are imported from elsewhere. In these cases, I am amenable to the idea that you can remove them from public places / and/or export them back out to remove obstructions to public life, but I acknowledge it's very difficult to determine where this idea is reasonable and prevent it from being abused by local governments that are not so disproportionately affected by this problem.
agent281 2y ago
Alternatively, there could be some public space where it is legal to be homeless. The area could be fitted with bathrooms and other services. The issues are that cities may be concerned about liability in that space and where you could put that space without angering some residents. Additionally, a lot of homeless people would probably rather have their own space so they would reject a city sanctioned location for homeless people. Unfortunately, it seems like an unlikely solution.
- PheonixPharts 2y ago
  > there could be some public space where it is legal to be homeless. Of course! And that's precisely what this case is about. It's not saying that city governments should never remove people from public spaces. It's saying if you don't have a space where it is legal to be homeless, only then can you not legally remove homeless people from public spaces.
  - 8f2ab37a-ed6c 2y ago
    Then we're in accord, thanks for clarifying.
- euniceee3 2y ago
  That is literally what Slab City is. The land belongs to the CA Teachers Union, so it comes down to who will allow for their land to be used for perpetual squatting?
Aunche 2y ago
I don't mind homeless people sleeping under a bridge, but they shouldn't be allowed to camp everywhere. If you aren't even allowed to park for 3 hours in a location, why should a homeless person be allowed to camp there indefinitely and throw needles that are difficult to prove are yours?
- PheonixPharts 2y ago
  Again, the case (and I) am arguing in agreement with you. The point being debated is not about saying homeless can do as they please. It's very specifically arguing you need to give the homeless some place where they can camp out or other wise live. If you had a city that designated all areas under bridges as legal for homeless occupation, then yes those cities would be allowed to remove the homeless from other areas. The entire point of this case boils down to "do homeless people have a right to exist" not "can homeless people sleep on my kids playground if they want". The point being argued that cities have some obligation to take care of their homeless populations and if they refuse to, then they are essentially giving up control of their public spaces. Want a nice downtown? Great, give the homeless sleeping on the streets there some place else to go and yes you can force them to leave.
  - Aunche 2y ago
    Being allowed to camp somewhere is a privilege and not a right. The problem with designating a place where homeless people have a right to camp means that it's substantially more difficult to take action if that area becomes a breeding ground for crime. I suppose that it would be cruel if homeless people actually aren't allowed to camp anywhere, but I believe that in practice, if they're not disruptive, a city isn't going to waste tax dollars on sending them to jail.
    - wolverine876 2y ago
      > I believe that in practice, if they're not disruptive, a city isn't going to waste tax dollars on sending them to jail. I've read about that happening many times. People need rights, not depend on the goodwill of local government and hope; that's why we have a Constitution with limited government and don't depend on the goodwill of a monarch. You wouldn't accept that for your home - they can kick you out any time, but why would they?
nineplay 2y ago
This may sound dismissive but at some level the homeless people need to figure out where they should go. A overarching truth off all attempts to give people aid is that you can't make people change when they don't want to. Therapy doesn't help people who aren't invested in it. Rehab doesn't help people who like using drugs. Anger management courses don't help people who find threats of violence give them what they want. Our society gets to make laws and I think laws that prevent people from turning a public space into their permanent camp site aren't unreasonable. My problem is I want to use my library and I'm going to try to solve that problem. I don't know how to solve their problem - but I'm not going to accept that I need to solve it before I get my library back. So far as I can tell a lot of the homeless are not dumb.
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 2y ago
  My thesis is that part of the issue is the ruinous empathy that is given to people who ultimately have no plans of getting better, or those who can't take care of themselves and need society to step in with a loving but firm hand. It's the constant giving without expecting anything in return, only exacerbating the free-rider problem that many will take advantage of, in the name of empathy.
  - nineplay 2y ago
    I agree and I think a lot of 'solutions' are going to fail until the people involved acknowledge that kindness and empathy aren't enough. By most accounts there are a lot of homeless people who are living pretty comfortably as far as they're concerned. If I want my library back ( I do ) than I need to find a way to make living in front of it less comfortable for them.
  - Gibbon1 2y ago
    I think it's the opposite, the ruinous callousness that sees able bodied homeless sleeping on the street and thinking they're a problem that needs to be eliminated. Instead of thinking why is an able bodied man or woman not be able to afford to sleep indoors. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/permit-home-building-code-19369323.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/permit-home-building-...
carlosjobim 2y ago
> then that implies being homeless is a criminal activity Which it has been in many places and still might be in some. But this has to be combined with some kind of program for them to exist legally.
HDThoreaun 2y ago
> But where do homeless people go if removed from public spaces? Public spaces where theyre not bothering anyone obviously. If you sleep somewhere where no one is bothered then you wont be bothered. If you sleep in a park people want to use the police will be called on you.

couchand 2y ago

Is this the world you wish to live in? Where the greatest concern is not for the provisioning of housing for all but instead the punishment of those who have no other options available?

lylejantzi3rd 2y ago
Is this the world you wish to live in? https://archive.is/H6GVE https://archive.is/H6GVE
- PheonixPharts 2y ago
  Nobody wants to live in that world, including the homeless people in that picture. But the homeless populations are symptoms of larger problem in the society. Simply making homelessness illegal is a far worse world. Those people in the picture will still exist, they'll just be contained in a prison. If, through some unexpected hardship, you found yourself without a home would you consider yourself a criminal worthy of punishment? Or do you consider the fact that you have housing some moral choice you are making in the same way you choose not to steal? The fundamental argument being debated is: if you don't want homeless people in your public space, you need to give them some other option if you are going to force them out of those spaces.
  - lylejantzi3rd 2y ago
    There is no "but" here. Can you suggest a solution that hasn't been tried over and over again for the past 20 years (at least?) Your suggestions have resulted in more homelessness and worse conditions for the homeless.
    - diob 2y ago
      Not sure we can fix it here in the US. It's wild going to a place like Australia and seeing how differently the police and others treat homeless folks there, in short, with compassion. We're just obsessed with car culture, militarized police, and "individualism".

conk 2y ago

In what way does the authority to govern require the ability to remove people from public spaces?

readyman 2y ago
State democracy and capitalism. Local electorates are primarily wealthier people with time on their hands, so they overwhelmingly prioritize fighting crime and promoting local commerce, which are efforts that homeless populations are seen as undermining. The result is that punishing homelessness gets politicians re-elected.
627467 2y ago
as long as people wish governing powers to include that ability, that's the way. you find that most (all?) jurisdictions include provisions to remove people from public spaces.

CogitoCogito 2y ago

I guess it would incentivize local governments to decrease housing costs build more housing by removing their ability to sweep the problem under the rug.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

I don’t understand how local governments lack the authority to provide affordable housing, or housing for the homeless. Some citizens are land owners, but all citizens are stakeholders. (TLDR non market housing)

klysm 2y ago
They don't lack the authority as far as I know.
- dylan604 2y ago
  They lack the desire and use funding as an excuse. Where there's a will, there's a way. There's just no real will.
  - readyman 2y ago
    Local electorates are primarily wealthier people with time on their hands, so they overwhelmingly prioritize fighting crime and promoting local commerce, which are efforts that homeless populations are seen as undermining. The result is that punishing homelessness gets politicians re-elected.
welshwelsh 2y ago
The purpose of the government is to serve the interests of the taxpayers that fund it. Not to transfer resources from taxpayers to non-taxpayers.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Government exists to serve citizens, regardless of taxes paid. Tax obligation does not buy preferential representation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes_in_the_United_State...
  - readyman 2y ago

krustyburger 2y ago

Ordering someone to return to their home is one thing. The question is more complicated when the person does not have a private residence. “Removing” someone from one spot doesn’t make them cease to exist- they have to then be put somewhere else. Certainly local governments aren’t depositing them onto private property, so the only options are other public property (including jail). I don’t follow why this practice being placed off limits for Constitutional reasons would cause local government to somehow lose its authority to govern. In our system, local governments can’t do plenty of things to their citizens, even in public spaces. Their ability to govern nevertheless remains intact.

V__ 2y ago

Where is the line? When is it homelessness, when loitering, when walking? This will be used to prevent demonstrations, remove other unwanted people or just punish some outgroup.

readyman 2y ago
Sleeping on public property is basically how they're measuring this. Just read the article.

klyrs 2y ago

Fundamental right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If you're going to insist that every person must have a roof over their head, and there aren't enough roofs to go around, it doesn't take away that most fundamental right. A just government does not revoke a person's life nor liberty for failing to attain the unattainable.

tennisflyi 2y ago

I mean, it wouldn’t be a public if they could, no?

Vegenoid 2y ago

Local governments shouldn’t be allowed to remove people from public spaces for any reason. There must be a justification, the people must be violating a law. The core of this issue is not about “whether or not local governments are allowed to remove people from public spaces”, it’s “under what scenarios are local governments allowed to remove people from public spaces”. Even if they rule in favor of Johnson, there will still be many scenarios that allow a government to remove people from public spaces.

wolverine876 2y ago

> I don't understand how local governments could possibly lack the authority to remove people from public spaces. We seem to forget these days that we (very thankfully) have rights and live in a free country that recognizes them. People are free individuals, at liberty to do as they please unless there is some strong reason to stop them that is also constitutional, lawful, and follows due process. 'I don't like them' and 'they look/smell/talk funny' aren't sufficient reasons. I don't see how local government has the authority to remove someone from public space except in very limited circumstances. Public space is not the property of local government. You have a right to do what you want there.

HDThoreaun 2y ago
> Public space is not the property of local government. Yes it is? > You have a right to do what you want there. No you absolutely do not have the right to do whatever you want just because its owned by the government.
- wolverine876 2y ago
  I think you are forgetting the fundamentals of freedom. You are a free person; you can do what you want, for the most part.

throwaway290232 2y ago

[dead]

incomingpain 2y ago

>I don't understand how local governments could possibly lack the authority to remove people from public spaces. I have the fundamental human right of movement. I'm allowed to go wherever is 'public', sidewalks, parks, etc. Government also cant seize my property. For example a tent. Hence the inability for government to violate the homeless' civil rights. Now I go further, what seems quite obvious to me is that it's government's fault for homelessness. Not just local, but combination of government failure. Politicians whose failures are on display with homelessness are really hoping they could tyrannically violate people's civil rights to attempt to hide their own failures.