4 ms·

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 s

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.

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.