Monday SCOTUS hears arguments in an important case on homelessness.

1
The most significant case in decades on homelessness has reached the Supreme Court as record numbers of people in America are without a permanent place to live. The justices on Monday will consider a challenge to rulings from a California-based appeals court that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. A political cross section of officials in the West and California, home to nearly one-third of the nation’s homeless population, argue those decisions have restricted them from “common sense” measures intended to keep homeless encampments from taking over public parks and sidewalks. Advocacy groups say the decisions provide essential legal protections, especially with an increasing number of people forced to sleep outdoors as the cost of housing soars.

The case before the Supreme Court comes from Grants Pass, a small city nestled in the mountains of southern Oregon, where rents are rising and there is just one overnight shelter for adults. As a growing number of tents clustered its parks, the city banned camping and set $295 fines for people sleeping there. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely blocked the camping ban under its finding that it is unconstitutional to punish people for sleeping outside when there is not adequate shelter space. Grants Pass appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the ruling left it few good options. “It really has made it impossible for cities to address growing encampments, and they’re unsafe, unhealthy and problematic for everyone, especially those who are experiencing homelessness,” said lawyer Theane Evangelis, who is representing Grants Pass. The city is also challenging a 2018 decision, known as Martin v. Boise, that first barred camping bans when shelter space is lacking. It was issued by the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit and applies to the nine Western states in its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court declined to take up a different challenge to the ruling in 2019, before the solidification of its current conservative majority.
The case comes after homelessness in the United States grew by 12%, to its highest reported level as soaring rents and a decline in coronavirus pandemic assistance combined to put housing out of reach for more people, according to federal data. Four in 10 people experiencing homelessness sleep outside, a federal report found. More than 650,000 people are estimated to be homeless, the most since the country began using the yearly point-in-time survey in 2007. People of color, LGBTQ+ people and seniors are disproportionately affected, advocates said. Two of four states with the country’s largest homeless populations, Washington and California, are in the West. Officials in cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco say they do not want to punish people simply because they are forced to sleep outside, but that cities need the power to keep growing encampments in check. Several cities and Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom urged the high court to keep some legal protections in place while reining in “overreach” by lower courts. The Martin v. Boise ruling allows cities to regulate and “sweep” encampments, but not enforce total bans in communities without enough beds in shelters.

The Justice Department also backed the idea that people shouldn’t be punished for sleeping outside when they have no where else to go, but said the Grants Pass ruling should be tossed out because 9th Circuit went awry by not defining what it means to be “involuntarily homeless.” Evangelis, the lawyer for Grants Pass, argues that the Biden administration’s position would not solve the problem for the Oregon city. “It would be impossible for cities to really address the homelessness crisis,” she said. Public encampments are not good places for people to live, said Ed Johnson, who represents people living outside in Grants Pass as director of litigation at the Oregon Law Center. But enforcement of camping bans often makes homelessness worse by requiring people to spend money on fines rather than housing or creating an arrest record that makes it harder to get an apartment. Public officials should focus instead on addressing shortages of affordable housing so people have places to live, he said. “It’s frustrating when people who have all the power throw up their hands and say, ‘there’s nothing we can do,’” he sad. “People have to go somewhere.” The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June.
https://apnews.com/article/homelessness ... 5942961253
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Monday SCOTUS hears arguments in an important case on homelessness.

2
The underlying question not being addressed is whether people are required to have a permanent residence. It also begs the question of affordability of housing, which raises the question of whether people are required to have a job. There's a whole "chain of existence" series, then, that pops into being.

Naturally, the Repub Party has consistently opposed any Basic Income initiatives from any city as an experiment. The experiments that have been allowed have borne fruit.
It’s one of the largest guaranteed income programs in the nation, giving participants $1,000 a month over three years, more money over a longer period of time than other similar income programs. Last year, the program added an additional 200 participants who are former foster youth.

--snrps--

Guaranteed income pilot programs first garnered mainstream attention in 2019, when Stockton launched a pilot program, giving families $500 monthly for two years. The idea was to see how people use financial aid when it doesn’t have restrictions.

That pilot is one of the only experiments with published study results. While there were positive impacts on mental health and wellbeing the first year, when the pandemic broke out, the benefits were less pronounced, according to Penn’s research.

--snrps--

The lab found, in general, that food and groceries are the top way participants are spending money, making up 35% of the funds spent. Retail sales and services are a close second at 31%.
https://calmatters.org/california-divid ... 8WEALw_wcB

The Repubs' problems stem from the idea that if seventeen folks aren't fighting each other for a nickel, then some rich person somewhere is not getting the other ninety-five cents of that dollar. Fuck them.

CDF
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Monday SCOTUS hears arguments in an important case on homelessness.

3
The big cities that have homeless problems aren't run by Republicans, they are run by Democrats. It's apparent that Democrats don't have the answers to the homeless crisis and neither do Republicans that run red states with blue big cities. Homelessness is another social problem like drug addiction and mental illness and in people who live on the streets all three tend to go together. The homeless can get SSI which is $943. a month, but if they have no residence or a bank account it complicates things. CA has spent over $20 billion on it's homeless problem and it's still not solved. California's latest law forces them into conservatorships, a public conservator makes decisions for them including treatment, medications...
Last edited by highdesert on Mon Apr 22, 2024 7:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Monday SCOTUS hears arguments in an important case on homelessness.

5
CDFingers wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2024 1:35 pm When we have hedge funds buying up homes and apartments so they can make a profit, the marginal people are cut out of the deal. When we criminalize their inability to afford hedge fund properties, we clearly have become an oligarchy. And this foments violent resistance, sad to say.

CDF
Agreed. One of the many reasons our oligarchy owned and operated representation in .Gov want US disarmed or, at the very least, only able to possess pea shooters.

The next ten years are gonna be rough for We the People especially for people without the means.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress.

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Re: Monday SCOTUS hears arguments in an important case on homelessness.

9
sikacz wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2024 2:14 pm Just like universal healthcare there should be affordable housing for all. There’s a variety of ways to do this but our politicians and their wealthy elite backers are not going to want to listen or try them out.
[sarc} Yeah, and I have always wondered why that is. It's almost like these folks who have more money than God want more and they want if from folks who have a fraction of what they have. [/sarc]

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress.

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Re: Monday SCOTUS hears arguments in an important case on homelessness.

10
CDFingers wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2024 1:35 pm When we have hedge funds buying up homes and apartments so they can make a profit, the marginal people are cut out of the deal. When we criminalize their inability to afford hedge fund properties, we clearly have become an oligarchy. And this foments violent resistance, sad to say.

CDF
Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Chicago, DC, New York. All Dem controlled and for quite some time. Yes, hedge funds are a problem. But it's being allowed in the blue bastions of the country.

Our latest homeless proposition will take away local homeless funds for they typical California dreamin top down state approach that continues to be a total failure. The latest audit (last week's news) says the state's homeless and housing program is missing billions of dollars. I'm sure that all went to red pockets, right? Right?! But never fear. Newsom is on it, like always, with more oversight. The guy's homeless programs have been utter fucking failure after failure. But this time, I'm sure he's on it.

Re: Monday SCOTUS hears arguments in an important case on homelessness.

11
Set aside a part of the park for long term camping and staff it 24/7 with at east two staff at all times. Repeat offenders and disrupters get sent to Boxes of Shame (AkA the legal system).

Have a twice daily food delivery for free hot meals for each occupied camping site based on number and age of occupants.

Have a bus outfitted for hot showers that comes by twice a week.

Provide clothing exchange; new clean clothes in exchange for similar old used. (clothes traded in that can be repaired go back into circulation).

Make the Park Camping Site a school bus stop.

Have a twice monthly medical team visitation. (include mental health)

My guess is that would still be way less costly than the constant fact finding and exploratory research AND would show results from day one.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!
jim

Re: Monday SCOTUS hears arguments in an important case on homelessness.

12
Here in my town, the conservative city council refuses to open a second, legal, camping spot. They have one, situated on the edge of town in a dirt lot surrounded by chain link with that green no-see-um cloth. They have a dumpster and one set of Port O Sans. There are over one hundred campers in there. We need a second lot, but the council's great plan is to make it so miserable for them that they'll leave.

There's a case about us, Warren vs. Chico, and the city council has spent a couple hundred thousand on lawyers and are parties to the Grant's Pass lawsuit. They would prefer to criminalize homelessness and be done with it. I think they should provide a second, larger and better equipped camping lot at the other end of town. There's a shower truck operated by one of the homeless activist groups, and they could use a second one.

They're heartless greed bags, our council. Mostly "land owners".

CDF
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Monday SCOTUS hears arguments in an important case on homelessness.

13
"Damn those who don't have permanent street addresses!"
~Republicans

That said, here in good ol' Lousyville KY, we're at the beginning of "Derby Season," the run-up to the most over-hyped two minutes in sports, the Kentucky Derby.

Yesterday (Saturday, the 20th) was this year's "Thunder (ous wretched excess) over Louisville, billed as the biggest fireworks show on several continents (or some such bizarre claim).

Some people set up camp in the park that is the epicenter of the event, to get and keep their favorite viewing spot before some other slack-jawed dipshit does. The city allows that, but only because the people setting up such campsites have houses they can go home to after the show. If one doesn't have such a house, and one tries to set up a campsite just about anywhere else within a couple miles of the riverfront or Churchill Downs or the corridor between the two, the City will chase you away from your belongings and scoop them into a garbage truck.

And our Mayor ran as a Democrat, claiming that his would be a "transparent" administration (oh, speaking of transparency, the contract negotiations with the local police union were behind closed doors, and the proposed pay package is an affront to the Fire Department and EMS workers who do much more for the people of the community, who haven't gotten a decent pay raise or pension funding in decades. All while our police department is under DOJ investigation that will lead to a Consent Decree).
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Re: Monday SCOTUS hears arguments in an important case on homelessness.

14
I don't favor criminalizing homelessness at all. But there must be provided places for them. In front of houses and apartments ain't it. Neither is under bridges and alongside freeways. I like Sig's suggestions.

Thing is, there are some advocacy groups that have done great work with rehabilitation. But CA and other places like a grand centralized solution. It doesn't work like that. Localized orgs have a much better handle on what the local needs are. The more the state tries to control the solution, the shittier the results. Fund the local programs that already exist and build from there, I say.

Re: Monday SCOTUS hears arguments in an important case on homelessness.

15
featureless wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2024 6:09 pm
CDFingers wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2024 1:35 pm When we have hedge funds buying up homes and apartments so they can make a profit, the marginal people are cut out of the deal. When we criminalize their inability to afford hedge fund properties, we clearly have become an oligarchy. And this foments violent resistance, sad to say.

CDF
Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Chicago, DC, New York. All Dem controlled and for quite some time. Yes, hedge funds are a problem. But it's being allowed in the blue bastions of the country.

Our latest homeless proposition will take away local homeless funds for they typical California dreamin top down state approach that continues to be a total failure. The latest audit (last week's news) says the state's homeless and housing program is missing billions of dollars. I'm sure that all went to red pockets, right? Right?! But never fear. Newsom is on it, like always, with more oversight. The guy's homeless programs have been utter fucking failure after failure. But this time, I'm sure he's on it.
Agree, drug addiction, mental illness and homelessness are the three biggest social problems of our times and Newsom is too busy preping his image for a 2028 White House run.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Monday SCOTUS hears arguments in an important case on homelessness.

16
We can wonder about our priorities, We spend billions on military aid to Israel to kill civilian, men, women, and children, but very little to help those that need help in our own country. In Fort Worth,TX the school board is planning to close seven middle schools and consolidate the students into other schools due to lower enrollment. These schools will be vacant and with very little effort could be made into at least temporary housing for the homeless population. But that won't happen, they will be left vacant or sold off for the land.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Monday SCOTUS hears arguments in an important case on homelessness.

18
A majority of Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared sympathetic to an Oregon city making it a crime for anyone without a permanent residence to sleep outside in an effort to crack down on homeless encampments across public properties. The case, City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, carries enormous stakes nationwide as communities confront a growing tide of unhoused residents and increasingly turn to punitive measures to try to incentivize people to take advantage of social services and other shelter options. "These generally applicable laws prohibit specific conduct and are essential to public health and safety," argued the city's attorney Theane Evangelis during oral arguments, which stretched more than two and a half hours. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said in a decision last year that a homeless camping ban amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment" under the 8th Amendment. But several members of the high court's conservative majority took a critical view of that conclusion. "Have we ever applied the Eighth Amendment to civil penalties?" asked a skeptical Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Amy Coney Barrett worried about where to draw the line, wondering aloud whether the Eighth Amendment could reasonably be invoked to prohibit punishment for hungry people who steal food or engage in other behaviors necessary for survival. "How do we draw these difficult lines about, you know, public urination and those sorts of things?" she said.

Many appeared to reject claims that the Grants Pass ordinance and others like it criminalize a person based their experience of involuntary homelessness, rather than for a concrete action. Supreme Court precedent has said it's unconstitutional to punish someone for a relatively immutable quality, like drug addiction. "What if the person finds that person in a homeless state because of prior life choices or their refusal to make future life choices?" asked Justice Samuel Alito. Some conservative justices, while empathetic to the plight of the unhoused, suggested that local officials -- not courts -- are best positioned to grapple with the complicated issue of homelessness. "This is a serious policy problem," said Chief Justice John Roberts, "and it's a policy problem because the solution, of course, is to build shelter to provide shelter for those who are otherwise harmless. But, municipalities have competing priorities ... Why would you think this these nine people are the best people to judge and weigh those policy judgments?" The court's three liberal justices -- clearly breaking with the majority of justices -- forcefully defended the rights of homeless people to camp in public places, likening the Grants Pass law to cruelly punishing someone's basic need. "Sleeping is a biological necessity," noted Justice Elena Kagan. "Presumably, you would not think it's okay to criminalize breathing in public." "Sleeping that is universal, that is a basic function," echoed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "What I don't understand is in this circumstance why that particular state is being considered 'conduct' for the purpose of punishment." "Where do we put them if every city, every village, every town lacks compassion and passes a law identical to this?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "Where are they supposed to sleep? Are they supposed to kill themselves not sleeping?"

Backers of the law say many individuals who've camped in city parks have chosen not to take an available bed in the town's Gospel Rescue Mission -- a private shelter in city limits -- which is only half full but requires residents to attend worship services, give up pets and pledge not to smoke or drink. The lead plaintiff in the case refused a shelter bed because she wanted to remain outside with her dog. Grants Pass has no public homeless shelters. Chief Roberts asked whether a nearby town's shelter capacity, or whether a person's decision to decline a bed, should be taken into consideration. "Let's say there are five cities all around Grants Pass and they all have homeless shelters, and yet the person wants to stay [in the camp]?" Roberts asked. "Can that person be given a citation?" Justice Alito questioned the practicality of determining the number available beds before a citation is issued to a person sleeping in a park, suggesting the lower court decision created an unworkable situation for law enforcement. "What is an individual police officer supposed to do?" he asked. "Count the number of people who are getting ready to sleep outside for the night, and then ask each one of them whether you've tried to find a bed at a shelter?"

Pressing the limits of the constitutional argument against the Oregon city's ordinance, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked if there might be a right to defecate and urinate in public if bathrooms aren't available to the homeless. Key to the argument is whether Grants Pass treats homelessness as a "status." Doing so could run afoul of a 1962 case, Robinson v. California, which held that it violated the Eighth Amendment to make drug addiction as a "status" illegal. "Homelessness is not something that you do. It's just something that you are," argued attorney Kelsi Corkran, representing the homeless plaintiffs. The Oregon law's defenders say the ordinance merely criminalizes the conduct of camping in public, not the fact that the camper has no home. They also argue that the state allows for a "necessity" defense, which those charged with violating the city's ordinance could pursue if they could show they truly had nowhere else to go. The Biden administration is asking the court to remand the case for further evidentiary findings before a final ruling is made. A decision is expected by the end of June.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme ... =109504149
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Monday SCOTUS hears arguments in an important case on homelessness.

19
600 homeless and 100 beds.

Sotomayor made a point that people with homes can fall asleep in a park while stargazing and not get arrested or asked to move along. If the Court decides to criminalize homelessness, they're once again shit-canning the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Well, that's par for the course, as they've already done it with a woman's right to privacy with respect to her medical decisions. But, hey. If you own a gun, then there's no national registration because, you know, privacy. I don't like that hypocrisy. And when we see that miserable Bible the orange spirochete put out that does not include any amendments beyond the Tenth, we can see their designs. A pox on all their houses. Jail that unholy cretin.

My town has spent a lot of money "moving along" homeless folks when they could have spent half of it setting up a secure camp ground with water, showers, and trash collection. It's not the money. For them, it's that they get to abuse someone in worse circumstances than their own. They're bullies, and bullies always pick on folks weaker than themselves. They're putzes.

CDF
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest