4 ms·
It allows them because of a court case that said they can't take them down unless they can provide shelter, and they've refused to build enough shelter space.
by tedivm 2y ago
It allows them because of a court case that said they can't take them down unless they can provide shelter, and they've refused to build enough shelter space.
The supreme court invalidated that decision, and so now they are allowed to tear the tent cities down again without having to actually find people shelter space. I imagine a lot of these encampments are going to be torn down (which will just cause them to relocate until they end up at a place where no one cares).
- brookst 2y agoMostly agree, but there are few places no one cares. The pattern is generally that they just get chased around from one place to another, forever.
- kjksf 2y agoSan Francisco was ignoring this problem for at least 10 years before that judgement happened. Not to mention the issue there wasn't exactly that the city was trying to do something but the fact that they were fining them and plaintiffs claimed the fines were so large that they were "cruel and unusual punishment" which is non-constitutional. So no, it's 100% political and bureaucratic apathy over many years, not one court case.
- PM_me_your_math 2y ago[dead]