5 ms·

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 loca

by Aunche 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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?
- tyoma 3y ago
  The core problem is that Grant’s Pass is being asked to shoulder the homeless burden for the region. They are not being provided with any means of help, and their ability to remove those who cause an excessive burden is being taken away. Look at Grant’s Pass on Google maps. It’s a small mountain town that looks like it has a low tax base in the best of times. If, at enormous cost to their tax base, adequate shelter is built, the only result will be more homeless who gravitate to their tiny town because its better than anywhere else in the region. The problem and solutions are regional. Who should really be being sued is the state of Oregon or the federal government, but that is much more difficult to do. If the ruling goes against Grant’s Pass, the result will be even more off-the-books policies to harass and intimidate the homeless until they move to the next town over, because every small town will see them not as human beings but as a potentially immense local tax liability that has to be moved before someone notices.
readyman 3y ago
Historically, the law tends to differentiate between human beings and inanimate objects because not doing so has historically been highly unpopular. Littering is already illegal, and without parking time limits in certain places you would not be able to park there in the first place.
- Aunche 3y ago
  Littering is illegal, but nobody is going to conduct a DNA test to confirm whether the feces or needles next to this homeless guy's camp is really theirs. The presumption of innocence is overall a good thing, but this also means that the only legal means to enforce things like not disposing needles on the streets is by selectively enforcing homelessness on bad actors.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > feces or needles I've seen many, many campsites of unhoused people. Like housed people's domiciles and yards, some are neat, some are messier. I don't see many specific problems. I think the parent comment's characterization is a myth, in part because it maps so neatly to the common prejudices of people who are unfamiliar with unhoused people - especially that they are somehow so horrifyingly filthy, to the point of being subhuman, an object of their outrage - and not with the reality of it, including the real problems. > feces That's a red flag for me. People commonly play it as a trump card against unhoused people - again, that subhumanity and outrage. It clearly is chosen to press that emotional button, to bypass the listener's reason and compassion. We are probably well-evolved to have a disgust reaction to feces. I've never seen it; I'm not sure how people so afraid of unhoused people have seen it so much. And how the heck did you know if it's from a dog or a person? What are the distinguishing characteristics? Did you examine it closely? I've seen city officials report it, but in limited experience: I've passed by encampments that were clean and neat, and then soon after read in the news that the city cleared the encampment due to the old 'feces and needles'. The reporting never checks the facts. By far the feces I see most in regard to unhoused people is bull feces in textual form. That's easier to recognize!
    - 3y ago
wolverine876 3y ago
> 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 Losing your parking spot is a minor commercial inconvenience to someone with (I assume) other resources; losing their campsite, especially without alternatives, costs an unhoused person their home and their shelter from the elements. I'm not even sure what we're discussing - these people need shelter and homes, of course. Park regulations are secondary. Not all unhoused people litter. One person is not guilty of or responsible for what someone else does. You are not responsible for what I do and vice-versa.

by Aunche 3y ago

PheonixPharts 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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?
tyoma 3y ago
The core problem is that Grant’s Pass is being asked to shoulder the homeless burden for the region. They are not being provided with any means of help, and their ability to remove those who cause an excessive burden is being taken away. Look at Grant’s Pass on Google maps. It’s a small mountain town that looks like it has a low tax base in the best of times. If, at enormous cost to their tax base, adequate shelter is built, the only result will be more homeless who gravitate to their tiny town because its better than anywhere else in the region. The problem and solutions are regional. Who should really be being sued is the state of Oregon or the federal government, but that is much more difficult to do. If the ruling goes against Grant’s Pass, the result will be even more off-the-books policies to harass and intimidate the homeless until they move to the next town over, because every small town will see them not as human beings but as a potentially immense local tax liability that has to be moved before someone notices.

readyman 3y ago

Historically, the law tends to differentiate between human beings and inanimate objects because not doing so has historically been highly unpopular. Littering is already illegal, and without parking time limits in certain places you would not be able to park there in the first place.

Aunche 3y ago
Littering is illegal, but nobody is going to conduct a DNA test to confirm whether the feces or needles next to this homeless guy's camp is really theirs. The presumption of innocence is overall a good thing, but this also means that the only legal means to enforce things like not disposing needles on the streets is by selectively enforcing homelessness on bad actors.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > feces or needles I've seen many, many campsites of unhoused people. Like housed people's domiciles and yards, some are neat, some are messier. I don't see many specific problems. I think the parent comment's characterization is a myth, in part because it maps so neatly to the common prejudices of people who are unfamiliar with unhoused people - especially that they are somehow so horrifyingly filthy, to the point of being subhuman, an object of their outrage - and not with the reality of it, including the real problems. > feces That's a red flag for me. People commonly play it as a trump card against unhoused people - again, that subhumanity and outrage. It clearly is chosen to press that emotional button, to bypass the listener's reason and compassion. We are probably well-evolved to have a disgust reaction to feces. I've never seen it; I'm not sure how people so afraid of unhoused people have seen it so much. And how the heck did you know if it's from a dog or a person? What are the distinguishing characteristics? Did you examine it closely? I've seen city officials report it, but in limited experience: I've passed by encampments that were clean and neat, and then soon after read in the news that the city cleared the encampment due to the old 'feces and needles'. The reporting never checks the facts. By far the feces I see most in regard to unhoused people is bull feces in textual form. That's easier to recognize!
  - 3y ago

wolverine876 3y ago

> 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 Losing your parking spot is a minor commercial inconvenience to someone with (I assume) other resources; losing their campsite, especially without alternatives, costs an unhoused person their home and their shelter from the elements. I'm not even sure what we're discussing - these people need shelter and homes, of course. Park regulations are secondary. Not all unhoused people litter. One person is not guilty of or responsible for what someone else does. You are not responsible for what I do and vice-versa.