4 ms·

IDK man, I think arresting people for just existing in public who have nowhere else to go is a morally reprehensible act and has no right existing in a form of

IDK man, I think arresting people for just existing in public who have nowhere else to go is a morally reprehensible act and has no right existing in a form of government that should operate under the best interest of it's citizens. But that's just me I guess.

engineer_22 2y ago
No problem, go to your municipal meetings and let them know you are in favor of allowing camping in public spaces in your municipality. If you vote in your local elections your representatives may also have similar opinions to yours. Talk to your friends and neighbors to ask how they feel about it too, maybe they agree. Democracy.
- EPWN3D 2y ago
  Now now, that would require the suburbanites who are eager to tut-tut and scold city-dwellers to put their money where their mouth is.
- notaustinpowers 2y ago
  People dying in the streets isn't something that should be up for debate or popular vote :)
  - engineer_22 2y ago
    The point isn't clear for you is it
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > People dying in the streets isn't something that should be up for debate or popular vote This is useless hyperbole.
    - notaustinpowers 2y ago
      If I cared I wouldn't have posted it.
EPWN3D 2y ago
There's no great answer here, unfortunately. Let's say the Supreme Court had ruled the other way and said "You cannot ban camping on public spaces if you don't have adequate shelter." The effect would be that smaller towns with limited budgets would face a potential influx of homeless people, since they don't have the resources to build shelters and therefore cannot ban public camping. Also, the proposed shelter constraint on the law is pretty dubious. Say a town builds a shelter and then it bans public camping. Does that law get nullified if a tornado destroys the shelter space? What if the shelter has 5 beds, but the homeless population grows to 100? At what point does that law become voided?
matrix87 2y ago
> who have nowhere else to go I call BS, there's thousands of other places in the country aside from downtown SF or other areas where they decide to congregate SC isn't banning homelessness nationwide, I highly doubt every municipality will ban it at once. It's just giving municipalities that suddenly get hordes of them showing up the ability to make them go elsewhere

engineer_22 2y ago

No problem, go to your municipal meetings and let them know you are in favor of allowing camping in public spaces in your municipality. If you vote in your local elections your representatives may also have similar opinions to yours. Talk to your friends and neighbors to ask how they feel about it too, maybe they agree. Democracy.

EPWN3D 2y ago
Now now, that would require the suburbanites who are eager to tut-tut and scold city-dwellers to put their money where their mouth is.
notaustinpowers 2y ago
People dying in the streets isn't something that should be up for debate or popular vote :)
- engineer_22 2y ago
  The point isn't clear for you is it
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > People dying in the streets isn't something that should be up for debate or popular vote This is useless hyperbole.
  - notaustinpowers 2y ago
    If I cared I wouldn't have posted it.

EPWN3D 2y ago

There's no great answer here, unfortunately. Let's say the Supreme Court had ruled the other way and said "You cannot ban camping on public spaces if you don't have adequate shelter." The effect would be that smaller towns with limited budgets would face a potential influx of homeless people, since they don't have the resources to build shelters and therefore cannot ban public camping. Also, the proposed shelter constraint on the law is pretty dubious. Say a town builds a shelter and then it bans public camping. Does that law get nullified if a tornado destroys the shelter space? What if the shelter has 5 beds, but the homeless population grows to 100? At what point does that law become voided?

matrix87 2y ago

> who have nowhere else to go I call BS, there's thousands of other places in the country aside from downtown SF or other areas where they decide to congregate SC isn't banning homelessness nationwide, I highly doubt every municipality will ban it at once. It's just giving municipalities that suddenly get hordes of them showing up the ability to make them go elsewhere