4 ms·

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

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.

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.