8 ms·

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 ar

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?
tyoma 2y 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.

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?

tyoma 2y 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.