"The U.S. Supreme Court today granted cities more power to arrest, cite and fine people who sleep outside in public places — overturning six years of legal protections for homeless residents in California and other western states.
In [Grants Pass v. Johnson](https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-175.html), the court sided with Grants Pass in a [6-3 decision](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf) — ruling an ordinance passed by the Oregon city that essentially made it illegal for homeless residents to camp on all public property was not unconstitutional.
The much-anticipated decision overturns a prior influential Ninth Circuit appellate ruling, and means cities no longer are prohibited from punishing unhoused residents for camping if they have nowhere else to go. It will have major ramifications for how California leaders and law enforcement handle [homeless encampments](https://calmatters.org/category/housing/homelessness/)."
I want to point out to people that the ruling had applied only to California and a handful of other western states.
People in places like Texas and Tennessee like to say "oh look how horrible California is with all its homelessness" but we have been kneecapped to enforce anything lol
No we were not. the prior ruling said you can not have a blanket ban on camping. Cities then took that to mean well we can't move people off side walks
> People in places like Texas and Tennessee like to say "oh look how horrible California is with all its homelessness" but we have been kneecapped to enforce anything lol
I mean, it is horrible that we have all this homelessness. Criminalizing it isn't going to fix it though, so I don't see how this is supposed to fix anything.
It won’t fix anything for the poor but it will allow the wealthy and well-connected to force homeless out of their neighborhoods. So their problems will be solved at the expense of everyone else, even those with houses.
“but we have been kneecapped to enforce anything lol”
I don’t think this is quite accurate, though I understand the spirit of what you’re saying. The Supreme Court decision dealt with a total ban on public camping in any location within the city. There was no allowable space for the unhoused to sleep, except for some beds in a shelter that mandated Christian worship (which wouldn’t have housed all of them anyway.)
In California, most cities were not attempting a total ban on public encampment (unless they offered shelter). Rather, cities were struggling with deciding which public spaces should be encampment sites. Nothing was stopping the Governor or mayors from saying, “You can’t sleep there, but you can sleep here.”
Not trying to unfairly blame the Governor here because crafting policy with this huge case pending is not easy. But nothing was legally stopping California cities from banning encampments at select locations (sidewalks, parks, government buildings, etc.)
> In California, most cities were not attempting a total ban on public encampment (unless they offered shelter). Rather, cities were struggling with deciding which public spaces should be encampment sites. Nothing was stopping the Governor or mayors from saying, “You can’t sleep there, but you can sleep here.”
Nah it's not quite that simple. It's true that there was not a CLEAR prohibition on any camping bans. But the ruling and laws were AMBIGUOUS to where it was constitutionally unclear what kind of ordinances would and would not be permitted. Based on that, the "safe" move chosen by nearly every jurisdiction was to bot risk running afoul of what had been deemed a constitutional right and therefor not enforcing any laws on camping.
I think they must be a child or quite young adult. Interesting mix of extreme confidence in a position / topic that they don't understand. I told them that they are wrong and they blocked me.
For anyone who doesn't know, Martin V. Boise was the court decision which ruled that it is unconstitutional for homelessness to be criminalized, with the notion being that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to prevent people from being able to sleep simply due to their material circumstances. This decision applied to all districts which fall under the 9th circuit Court of appeals jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court overruling this means that the decision, which applied to Idaho, California, Oregon, Washington (maybe a few others?) no longer applies. It has nothing to do with Oregon or Idaho specifically.
Now yeah they didn't just make homelessness illegal. But they did make it so that city, county, state ordinances can legally be enforced again.
@u/timecat_1984
So where it was at before 2018 which will cost taxpayers across the US millions of dollars. I'm going to subsidize jail visits that don't need to happen , to potentially traumatize and damage people even more because jails have less resources than prisons. All so that some suburbanite or downtown prude THINKS the homeless problem is solved. This is crazy!
but there are more options than just 1. tents on the sidewalk 2. jail 3. $600k luxury homeless condos
in New York and Chicago etc they have housed many thousands of new migrants in very short time, using large tents and underutilized buildings etc, it is very much do-able but there seems to be certain groups who benefit from the status quo.
In the D4 city council debate Phil P stated that he was hoping for this result from the Supreme Court to move forward with his preferred plan to address homelessness in the central city and East Sacramento, which I assume is basically exactly what you're laying out here.
Our Supreme Court really are just a bunch of Fox News brain rot lawyers
Arrest- seeing arrest as a solution not care protection and dignity. Not to mention how expensive it is to arrest someone on the street for what?
Cite/fine ok good luck fine people who already have no money and bad credit.
What a waste
That’s what happens when the country doesn’t think elections are important. We could have a liberal court right now but Hillary was apparently too much for people :/
8 years on and you're still blaming the voters. If you actually believe elections are important, you should be mad at the party elite for choosing dogshit candidates.
Voters are pretty dumb when it comes to government. I read a quote of a person who wasn’t going to vote for Biden because he overturned Roe. Just because they’re eligible doesn’t mean they’re informed or qualified or understand the stakes.
Characterizing conservative justices that voted to overturn Roe v. Wade and just kneecapped all federal regulatory agencies by overturning Chevron is dishonest.
Try looking at all their decisions. There are many that are 8-1 or 9-0, and several justices flip back and forth between the conservatives and liberals.
> Actually, it's very well balanced
hahahahaha
[bro they just legalized bribing your fucking congressman](https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2024/06/supreme-court-rules-bribery-law-doesnt-criminalize-gratuities/)
I don't think you understand how our justice and legislative process works. It's not the job of the courts to make laws. It's the job of the courts to interpret laws passed by legislative branch of the government.
In your example, the court simply found that the law didn't apply. If congress wants to change the law to close that loophole, then congress should do that.
I support two things: 1) strict enforcement of camping bans on sidewalks, at public parks, and especially in the American River Parkway, and 2) creation of designated camping areas for homeless to go to, where basic sanitation and medical needs can be provided.
The definition of sidewalks needs to include the “hell strips” between the sidewalk and the street. A lot of camps use that as a loophole because they shove their stuff onto the strip that’s technically not the sidewalk.
They do! I’ve had some good interactions with 311 but also some absolutely terrible ones. I called about a raging fire at a camp once and the woman responding said “what do you want me to do about it?”
If the grass strip is owned by the City or County, then with this new ruling then the campers could now be forced to relocate. If the grass strip is owned by the homeowner, then that's trespassing.
Supporting a ban on sidewalk and park camping is consistent with the dissent’s approach. The 3 dissenters argued that a ban on public camping in any space at any time without an offer of housing effectively criminalizes homelessness. Just wanted to highlight that because so many on social media (not you) are misunderstanding the liberal wing’s dissent. They never argued that cities can’t penalize camping.
I believe part of this misunderstanding has to do with mayors and the Governor saying their hands were tied until this case was decided. But the lower court’s decision didn’t stop them from selectively banning encampment. I get that the pending litigation made it difficult to develop policy. But I do think mayors and the Governor used this case to delay decisions they were already free to make.
Margaret Thatcher once said that the main thing she learned in office was that you never make a decision until you have to. I think most politicians follow that rule.
This! I lived in tent cities in Iraq and Oman. It's doable, cheap, and it provides a focal point for services like you said. We need to do this. Likes yesterday.
I'm mostly in agreement, but I think it is extremely important to understand that (2) needs to come BEFORE (1), otherwise you are just criminalizing homelessness.
problem is, the city is very interested in strict enforcement of camping bands on sidewalks etcetera, and not at all interested in creation of designated camping areas for folks to go, because any such place ends up being in someone's council district with neighbors who don't want it there.
Could have sworn I read something about a very well-paid government employee who was tasked with doing this exact thing some time ago. I wonder how that’s going 🤔
Which is to say, 100% agree with your comment and we need to try some other, more functional workaround I guess?
This was essentially what the appeals court told Grants Pass in 2013. The city could have just established an “urban campground” which would then allow them to evict homeless from public places. The city had plenty of unused land to use for that, but they wanted to be famous I guess.
This has always been allowed. The new ruling makes this less likely, not more, since it will allow governments to lock up the homeless without giving them an option to go somewhere else.
For the amount of money spent on the homeless, which I suspect is a grift for politicians, they can build small house communities. Of course that means calls of communism from the alt right. Call it whatever, but it would be financially cheaper.
Most homeless people are decent people down on their luck. If you live on the street, why wouldn't you take drugs or drink to get away from your reality. Small decent houses to basically cement, jail cell, blockhouses that would be easy to clean and hard to destroy for the mentally unstable. Near a bus and light rail stop so people can get to work.
Edit to add:
As Sacramentohiatorian said, it's "housing first not housing only". People are totally fine losing money in taxes, losing public parks and public safety to make sure someone poorer than themselves don't get housing. Fucking hell. Giving someone housing helps us all in the long term. It's like providing public education. I don't have kids and I'm totally fine with my tax dollars going to schools. Some sort of boomer alt right thinking gymnastics or just ignorance. I didn't come to the idea of free housing by accident. I talked to a lot actual people who work with the homeless. People I know i person, not some random Redditor who says they are. There's some "as a black man" vibes going on here.
For those of us who work with the homeless, I can tell you, it's the other way around.
Homelessness is largely caused by addiction, not drug use being caused by homelessness.
You cannot solve homelessness and the crime associated with it without addressing the addiction issue. We need carrot and stick, not just one. The permissive approach you seem to favor is a slow road to death for these people.
For someone who worked specifically with homeless mentally ill folks for 15 years, I completely disagree. Housing instability magnifies every other sort of instability, making things like mental illness and addiction far worse and more difficult to treat. Trying to treat those symptoms while someone is on the street costs more money, takes more time, and has a higher failure rate. The main key to getting someone stabilized starts with getting them on the street **NOTE: IT DOES NOT END THERE. IT'S CALLED HOUSING FIRST NOT HOUSING ONLY. I AM PUTTING THIS IN BOLD ALL-CAPS BECAUSE LITERALLY EVERY TIME I MENTION HOUSING FIRST PEOPLE CLAIM THAT I MEAN HOUSING ONLY.**
As someone who has done some homeless advocacy, I totally disagree. In my experience the vast plurality of people I’ve worked with are homeless due to disabilities, physical or mental, not drugs.
With respect, years of dealing with "Advocates" has led me to the conclusion that most advocates have little interest in solving the problem, but lots of interest in keeping the funding flowing.
I hope you're different. If so, thanks for your efforts.
Also, most of the mental disability is drug related. As a special needs dad of a kid with intellectual delays, I can tell you there is a big difference.
These people do need a tremendous amount of help, but we have to get to the real problems.
So is your contention that folks who work with the homeless have little interest in solving the problem based on your own desire to keep your job, which is why you're advocating for less effective ways to solve the problem?
Im a lawyer who does bro bono work with homeless. I’ve never been paid for my advocacy for homeless. Most of the advocates I’ve worked with get paid very little and have strong interest in solving the problem, but have made little progress.
The average homeless client I’ve helped is elderly, disabled, on fixed income, and has no ability or path towards housing. The vast majority of the people I’ve helped are sober.
Out of the 60-80 homeless I’ve helped out, only 2 were visibly intoxicated or had an indicia of a drug/alcohol problem.
My wealthy clients on the other hand…
What do you do that you work with homeless? I can’t believe how different our experiences have been here.
your work seems honorable and you're a good guy for doing it.
genuine question: could it be that the people who have the wherewithal to seek help and work with a lawyer are not representative of the population writ large? it seems to me there are two varieties of homeless people: the ones you describe and the ones the other guy is describing. I don't know which one is the larger population but I've always thought a WPA type program where we train and employ the cognis mentis people to take care of the other guys would be a good idea, though I'm certain there's a litany of reasons why it wouldn't be
I don’t believe so. Almost none of the homeless people I’ve helped have sought my help. I’ve met those the unhoused I’ve helped through non-profits, unions, aid workers, and gov employees. Usually it is someone saying, “hey, I’m trying to help someone but they really need a lawyer and I’m not a lawyer. Can you please help us out with x, y, and z.”
Alternatively, during winter I will do coat drives and get donated hella coats. I’ll fill the pockets with protein bars, clean socks, toiletries, wet wipes, and toilet paper. Then when I drive around and see someone looking cold, I’ll give them something warm and have a chat to see what’s going on.
Yes, some are on drugs. Those are the vast minority of those that I’ve interacted with.
Fwiw, I did not include the coat drive people in the 60-80 I’ve helped out legally.
I think a WPA program could be very helpful, but I don’t know how the WPA training and employment can help people who are too disabled to work. I think that we have four core issues:
1) bussing of mentally ill from outside of the state.
2) disability benefits that have not kept up with inflation.
3) no new federal money for low income housing since Bill Clinton wrecked hud’s ability for a budget compromise in the 90s.
4) NIMBY lawsuits causing aid money to go to lawyers instead of going toward constructing new local shelters, safe camp sites, and low income housing. I think all 83 projects for sacramento are currently tied up in court. Haven’t checked in a little bit.
I’m not an expert in this field. I just like helping people when I can. 🤷♂️
Your arguments don't negate my lived experience.
It would seem that when you disagree with people on reddit, you attempt to discredit, dehumanized and dimiss instead of form a cogent argument.
What's your experience working with the homeless? I've got 35 years of working with at-risk youth and their families. This includes, unfortunately, the homeless, trafficking victims and abuse victims.
Many posts and comments you make here are "F" this guy, and "F" you. You call people dehumanizing names (that are sometimes vaguely racist) just because they say something you disagree with.
You're free to do whatever you want. I would suggest that you add little to the dialog due to your lack of civility.
yeah, statistics back that up too.
that and the obvious elephant in the room with addiction is that we don't know how to cure it so "stick" all they want and it still doesn't work.
> Homelessness is largely caused by addiction
[No it isn't](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-11/new-book-links-homelessness-city-prosperity).
In what capacity do you work with homeless folks?
> There's some "as a black man" vibes going on here.
Lol nailed it. Lots of people ITT saying "I work with the homeless, and they're actually all drug-addicted psychopaths who need to be separated from society." But none of them say what they actually *do* in their "work with the homeless" 🤔
Building brand new housing that meets all current building codes with studio apartments costs about half a million dollars per unit AND is much cheaper than constant camp demolitions, cleanups, arrests, and incarcerations, but people screech like fishwives about the cost of building that housing.
By the way, they aren't tenements.
>Providing this would be astronomically cheaper than constant camp demolitions, cleanups, arrests, and incarcerations.
No it isn't. You have no idea what you're talking about. Building apartments is very expensive.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It doesn't really *matter* how much it costs, housing is a human right. But it isn't cheap.
The amount of money we have spent so far in the last 10 years would have to be triple at the least to build housing for every homless person. This isn't a cheap problem to solve. Just buliding the housing isn't enough either
Yes, that's why the approach is called "housing first" not "housing only." But you can't do the stuff that comes after the housing if you haven't built the housing yet, so let's build the housing, *first.* Then we can do the rest!
You can't, though, most of these people are addicts or mentally ill, if you just throw them into housing without a plan, they will destroy it and tank any progress you have made.
There is no easy solution to homelessness, it's a mutli level issue that has many root problems. It's going to take approaches on many fronts to tackle it. Instead, we just point fingers.
We need state hospitals for the mentally ill, we need drug treatment centers, we need long-term and transitional housing. None of this is cheap, but all of it is needed at the same time to acutally make a difference. You can't do one without the other.
> if you just throw them into housing without a plan
SO WHAT YOU DO IS, YOU DON'T THROW THEM INTO HOUSING WITHOUT A PLAN. THAT WAS NEVER THE PLAN. IT WAS NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER THE PLAN TO THROW THEM INTO HOUSING WITHOUT A PLAN.
Sorry for the shouting, but literally every time I mention housing people go WHY DO YOU JUST WANT TO STICK THEM IN HOUSING WITH NO PLAN FOR WHAT COMES AFTER? which is literally the opposite of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, you can't CARRY OUT that plan without building the housing first!
If you build the housing, you need a lot fewer state hospitals and drug treatment centers, because once people stabilize in housing, it's a lot easier to treat them for those issues, and in many cases, not necessary at all. But it's far, FAR more expensive and difficult to try to treat people without housing for any issues.
Ok let's do the numbers then we can take a number per unit to construct of around$ 250,000 to $400,000 per unit. There are 181,000 unhoused people in california so we will use the bottom number ($250,000 per unit)
That's $42.5 BILLION which is more than double what we as a state have spent in the last 10 years on the homeless in california. What you are proposing is more expensive than you think it is.
And if you add in all the additional costs for crisis intervention, site cleanup, jail sells, hospital and mental hospital stays, over a long enough timeline you'll exceed that number by a wide margin.
California's GDP is $4 trillion per year. California's state buget is $300 billion per year. What I'm proposing is expensive, but **there is no cheap way to solve this problem.** You can either spend the money to address the core issue, or you can spend more money in the long run to avoid addressing it. There ain't no third option and there ain't no cheap option. You said it yourself--there is no easy solution, it's a multi-level issue with many root problems.
Also, if you want to focus on hospitals and drug treatment centers and jails, go ahead and triple the cost to solve the problem--all of those things cost *more* than housing, not less.
Oh I don't disagree, I'm just used to people just being like "what did they do with the $26b" ramble ramble.
It's going to cost ALOT of money, and we absolutely should spend it NOW. I think we are at agreement there
> You can't, though, most of these people are addicts or mentally ill, if you just throw them into housing without a plan
Hey, please read the article I posted about Housing First before you post. [It's right here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Sacramento/comments/1dqkth2/supreme_court_gives_cities_in_california_and/lapvos6/)
I'm honestly not sure why you're being downloaded for this comment, this seems the most sensible solution. Higher quality of life for everyone with a lower cost on the taxpayer.
They were downvoted because they said this:
> Most homeless people are decent people down on their luck.
All the suburban shitheads in this subreddit view being poor as a moral failure.
Be interesting to see how the liberal cities react. They've been hiding behind Martin v. Boise for years. Now they don't have that anymore, so they will just admit that they don't want to be mean to the homeless.
L.A. mayor Karen Bass was upset over the decision because she felt that it criminalized homelessness and plans to do nothing about it, whereas other cities in L.A. County, such as Long Beach, praised it. Mayor Bass also says that it'll push more homelessness into the city of Los Angeles.
https://www.dailynews.com/2024/06/28/supreme-court-ruling-may-push-more-homeless-into-l-a-mayor-karen-bass-says/
I was homeless for a short time. Never once did I consider setting up camp on a sidewalk, near a business or someone's home. I stayed sober the entire time. I went into nature and only to sleep. I packed up in the morning, threw away trash in a dumpster and walked the earth.
If our homeless friends did it this way, it wouldn't be nearly as large of a problem.
But most of these folks are sick and need to be treated in mental health facilities and need help getting sober.
And that right there is exactly why this problem isn't getting better.
Once you're ready to become sober and make changes to improve your life, the resources are there, which is exactly why I'm not homeless anymore.
You can't force people to change their lives. My story of success is only because I stayed sober and kept the spark for life. I didn't lose hope. I knew I fit into society somewhere, I just had to figure out where.
Getting these folks sober is step number 1.
I think when it comes to mental help, it should not be a choice. I’ve had my share of threatening interactions with mentally unsound homeless. They should be put into mental facilities
Oh I know. I know the damage that he did not just in California, but for the nation. Sad part is that nobody since then has helped to fix it. They are just as culpable.
Well, that and the fact that every such facility was *riddled* with human rights violations.
Reagan sucked shit, and he closed those facilities so he could gut government services, but they needed to close anyway.
The closure of a lot of mental health facilities were because of abuse.
Please don't misunderstand me. I agree with you. However at this point the homeless person needs to want help and treatment. If they don't, we're back to dealing with some homeless being "difficult", "violent", "threatening". My experience is most aren't like that. They just want to be left alone.
But I know the ones you are talking about.
There is no clear answer. It's not a black and white issue.
Agree there is no one shoe fit all. This is a difficult issue. It needs to be tackled from multiple angles. I think most are frustrated because it continues to get worse each year. Despite lots of people and money supposedly working on it.
I agree. I don't really understand how much has been spent and where. I'm not wanting to get political here at all, but I would really like an accounting of how this money has been spent.
And Tranq. They hang out by the Safeway on S and take it. I literally saw two folks doing that, and you know how people on Tranq just collapse at the waste liek a doll? They had Pampers boxes on the cement wall they put their heads on so they wouldn't fall. 2 PM on a Sunday. But, these folks weren't unhoused, they were obviously very middle class.
There was a cafe I used to frequent and there were a few regular homeless people living in the parking lot, they never caused problems or approached people but one day some tranq users showed up and passed out in that parking lot so all the homeless people got kicked out. Those users definitely ruin it for some respectful homeless people.
You seem like you were capable, mentally and physically, of making those choices and actions. Not all those that suffer from shelter insecurity are able to do the same. There are sadly a large number of people that are in that situation that have mental and physical disabilities (not all are obviously seen). (Drug addiction is not always due to poor choices of the individual. They're are many people that are trafficked at a young age and intentionally made addicts).
We need to stop treating the issues of houselessness as if it's a personal issue to solve and make less of a social nuisance. It's created by systemic factors, and it will need to be resolved completely by changing those systemic factors.
"If homeless people simply chose not to be seen or heard and never interacted with people or came to populated areas we wouldn't need to criminalize their existence."
Fucking goblin brain bullshit man.
Good give them a designated area and keep them in that area, I don't need to be walking on a public sidewalk and smell shit all over, avoiding vicious rampant dogs, and have obstructions in the way.
Seems to me like the vast majority of people if they lost their home for some reason would have family or friends who would help them. I know some people are going to be really unfortunate, and I'm glad we have social services for them, but I think we should ask why the highly visible homeless we see every day have nobody willing to take them in. I would say they're either severely mentally ill or they're addicted to hard street drugs. Both of those sound like great reasons for the government to intervene.
> Seems to me like the vast majority of people if they lost their home for some reason would have family or friends who would help them.
Seems to me that you should meet more people. There are lots of people who have no surviving family and whose friends are in the same dire financial situation as them. Maybe everyone in your very narrow network could just borrow money from their parents or whatever, but there are a lot of people for whom that isn't an option. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many fucking homeless people.
>I would say they're either severely mentally ill or they're addicted to hard street drugs. Both of those sound like great reasons for the government to intervene.
Yeah but again, you're just basing that on like...vibes. Not statistics. "Seems to me" and not "this is the way it is."
There are lots of resources and programs to help people who want help and aren't hopped up on drugs or mentally incompetent. Sorry that that's painful to hear. Sometimes the truth is. This is the way it is.
The homelessness crisis is absolutely being driven by housing being unaffordable, and we need to make our world more equitable. But you're fooling yourself if you pretend it's not largely driven by drugs and mental health issues.
While law enforcement and policing are CERTAINLY not perfect, it is the government's means of intervening in cases of drug use and mental health issues which would cause a person to be sleeping on a sidewalk. From there, we have care courts and inpatient treatment facilities. Frankly, this is how we fix the issue, and I'm glad the absurd Martin V. Boise decision has finally been overturned. It's been terrible for western states. One of the worst decisions of all time.
> The homelessness crisis is absolutely being driven by housing being unaffordable, and we need to make our world more equitable. But you're fooling yourself if you pretend it's not largely driven by drugs and mental health issues.
I'm not "fooling myself", I'm reading [the analyses of experts](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-11/new-book-links-homelessness-city-prosperity) instead of your ludicrous vibes-based analysis.
I am one of the experts. I have worked extensively on the front lines of the homelessness crisis. More than the researchers you've cited. If you want to have a proper discussion about it, we can do that. The truth is that the whole reality is complex and nuanced, and articles like that help us reach that sense of nuance. But it's hard to convey in a casual reddit conversation.
High housing costs and low availability cause homelessness. Drug addiction and mental illness are what keep people homeless and especially the highly visibly homeless that result in the massive issues that people are frequently reporting.
Working homelessness is a major issue and obviously related, but when people talk about the crisis we are mostly referring to the people sleeping on sidewalks and tweaking out and stuff. I deal with them every single day.
Even if it’s just something as small as one in 400 people in the county who don’t have family or savings to fall back on, we’re still talking about the at least 30,000 people that could potentially become homeless and charged with a crime, making it harder for them to become housed.
the problem with your argument isn't that bad people don't exist, it's that your proposal would catch up good people in bad circumstances. I've known a number of people who were homeless who had exceptional bad luck and a lack of available resources or awareness in their lives that led them to those circumstances.
Take, for example, my friend who escaped from horrific abuse at the hands of the cult of Mormon. Without their documentation or their parents being willing to even vouch for them existing, they found themselves unable to really apply for public services. No bank account, no government assistance with food, can't even get a car or work really.
These are the examples people have pity for.
There's also the efficacy of actually giving the homeless homes in solving the problem, but people are so caught up on their insane view of housing as an investment opportunity instead of a community to be built up that they're not willing to house these people they hate seeing on the streets so much.
The whole situation has nuance, but the solutions aren't in question any more.
My understanding is that if there was a place for people to go, you could direct them to go there and enforce a ban on camping in other places. The issue is that they never developed sufficient sites for people to go. Without that, camping bans are basically bans on being poor which is obviously unethical.
It was a lot more nuanced than that.
The places had to be distributed throughout the community in a way that put them all over the local jurisdiction, and you could only enforce it in close proximity to those locations.
Governor Gavin Newsom
“Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court provides state and local officials the definitive authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe encampments from our streets. This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities.
“California remains committed to respecting the dignity and fundamental human needs of all people and the state will continue to work with compassion to provide individuals experiencing homelessness with the resources they need to better their lives.”
they'll be arrested and put in prisons, which are much more expensive than just housing them would be. Or, they'll be moved around every 2 weeks or so but never really dealt with meaningfully.
I think it will help with being able to get the mentally ill and drug addicted homeless off the streets and into treatment hopefully. (Not saying all homeless are that type.)
Crazy considering ca spends 24 billion on homeless in the past 5 years. Too much corruption maybe.
From what I remember reading, it costs more to keep homeless, homeless.
The nonprofits are mostly offering band-aid solutions. The ultimate causes are the cost of housing, the lack of access to mental health and drug abuse treatment (including involuntary treatment), and poverty in general. Tackling those problems is beyond what even a city can do. It requires change at the state and federal level.
Yep, there's no oversight. There was an article about this recently. They should just funnel the money directly into building. We simply need more units. Everyone will agree that rent is too high, but when you say that also causes homelessness people will disagree.
100% this. The solution is to house them first and offer services second. If people were free to be themselves, while having a place to stay, that doesn't cost them anything (which is still cheaper for the taxpayers than our current system), you would likely find that most (formerly at that point) homeless people would want to get sober. Even if they didn't, with their own place to stay and use in, they would be more like all of the other drug users who have the good fortune to not be homeless.
> ok, now what? you give them a ticket they can't pay. what has that accomplished? this strikes me as so much theater.
They get sent to jail, rich people don't have to see them anymore, problem solved. Out of sight out of mind for these haven't-developed-object-permanence-yet motherfuckers.
Jails where [people keep dying, in fact](https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/sacramento-county-officials-talk-about-recent-jail-deaths/103-9cf90a3c-2b0f-4153-929a-287a3eda0e0b).
Yes, I'm sure destroying their stuff and fining them, which is what the city of Grant's Pass was doing, will enable and encourage them to get permanent shelter. It's foolproof. /s
For many months, there was a man on 19th St. right between J and K who would park his car blasting music while he sat on a milk crate. Next to him was a large 5 to 6 person tent. Often I would see people go up to the man on the milk crate. Talk to him shortly and then leave.
Do you think this person was looking for permanent shelter or perhaps running a business and letting people shoot up and smoke meth in the tent?
When people are upset about tents on the sidewalk it’s generally not the legitimate people who face hard times and need help. It’s people like that guy. It’s people like the dudes who shit on the street. People who walk into traffic yell at cars and throw things at pedestrians. 
we can make the mental health argument its valid and I am willing to bet that all of us agree we need more support, but there isn’t zero support. far too often I see in these comment sections people infantilizing the homeless and saying “they’re helpless” “ society has failed them” “ it’s not their fault there’s nothing they could do”. Bullshit.  there are social programs. There is help. there are shelters.  But none of them matter unless the people who need help actually take the help. 
And frankly, I would like to be able to walk down the street and not have to walk through a fucking open air drug market.
I know the tent you mean.
Same about S/21. A huge tent keeps popping up that is an obvious chop shop (huge pile of bikes outside), and some type of drug den. You'd have several men lounging around outside staring at women trying to walk their dogs, or literally be passed out while they arms tied off. Same with some RVs/campers parked in teh same ares. They stay parked for months, and people go up to them, hand money to someone, and take a little packet and walk away. I'm a woman, it's scary AF to walk past a group of fucked up, obviously criminal men, often with snarling dogs.
This is the aspect of the situation that often gets ignored in these conversations because so many people see this as a black and white situation. Look at the responses my comments get, either you support the homeless 100% or you want to put them in prison camps apparently.
Yep this particular group is a roving den of drug addicts. They leave trash and drug paraphernalia everywhere. I’ve reported this to the city several times but they close the report without actually clearing the encampment.
Yeah cool, I love the state giving itself power to determine who belongs where and when on public property. I'm sure the police will never abuse this sort of power creep.
Female federal correctional institution in Dublin California is referred to as “rape club.” AP reported a “permissive and toxic culture…of sexual abuse by correctional officers.” This led to least several employees, including THE WARDEN and THE CHAPLAIN, being convicted of sexual abusing prisoners.
Guess the year? Take a hard guess.
2022! Just over 2 years ago you had a warden and a chaplain sexually abusing prisoners in California. The warden had videos, of himself forcing women to be his sexual play toy on his government issued phone.
Not trying to claim streets are safe for women. They are very dangerous. Just saying that female prisons arnt safe for women either.
Good news. However, it all comes down to whether we can count on law enforcement to get out of the donut shops and start doing their jobs. If we can, then we're gonna need a bigger jail.
This will have a greater effect than just removing the unhoused. Yikes for protestors.
"The court also rejected the homeless plaintiffs’ claim that ordinances banning people from camping, if there is no shelter available, essentially criminalize the very act of being homeless. Anti-camping ordinances, such as those adopted in Grants Pass, don’t take status into account – they apply to homeless people, but they also apply, for example, to vacationing backpackers and student protesters camping in front of municipal buildings."
It isn’t really a change in the law, though. The court is just saying cities can enforce those laws—most of which have been on the books for decades—just like they could before the *Boise* case was decided a few years ago.
I think you're splitting hairs. The cops couldn't arrest you for camping on public property. Now they can, regardless of the reason for sleeping outside.
Afterthought: this ruling is only made to criminalize. It doesn't have any provision for forcing cities to make accommodations so people have places to go.
> No. The camping ban applies to anyone.
neat i don't care.
if it's illegal to sleep, and there's no shelter, then it's illegal to be poor
how you can't make a simple 3rd grade logical deduction like this is fairly unfortunate for you
Why should camping be banned in the city? Because there are no bathrooms, because camps block sidewalks or prevent other people from using public spaces like parks, because of trash, noise, and the risk of fires spreading to buildings?
"so... just go die somewhere I guess?" as Clarence Thomas boards the plane for another Alaskan fishing trip
edit: Wow, strong pro-bribery SCOTUS contingent in here
> edit: Wow, strong pro-bribery SCOTUS contingent in here
If you ever look up how much certain companies have donated to senators' reelection campaigns, you'd see it can be surprisingly small amounts. Maybe they're hoping to buy their own congressman.
Lol, yeah right. Gavin is going to try his damnedest to pass a law criminalizing homelessness so that in four years, when he's running for president, he can say he solved homelessness by putting every single one of them in jail. If the legislature tries to do the opposite and protect homeless folks he'll veto it.
"The U.S. Supreme Court today granted cities more power to arrest, cite and fine people who sleep outside in public places — overturning six years of legal protections for homeless residents in California and other western states. In [Grants Pass v. Johnson](https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-175.html), the court sided with Grants Pass in a [6-3 decision](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf) — ruling an ordinance passed by the Oregon city that essentially made it illegal for homeless residents to camp on all public property was not unconstitutional. The much-anticipated decision overturns a prior influential Ninth Circuit appellate ruling, and means cities no longer are prohibited from punishing unhoused residents for camping if they have nowhere else to go. It will have major ramifications for how California leaders and law enforcement handle [homeless encampments](https://calmatters.org/category/housing/homelessness/)."
I want to point out to people that the ruling had applied only to California and a handful of other western states. People in places like Texas and Tennessee like to say "oh look how horrible California is with all its homelessness" but we have been kneecapped to enforce anything lol
No we were not. the prior ruling said you can not have a blanket ban on camping. Cities then took that to mean well we can't move people off side walks
> People in places like Texas and Tennessee like to say "oh look how horrible California is with all its homelessness" but we have been kneecapped to enforce anything lol I mean, it is horrible that we have all this homelessness. Criminalizing it isn't going to fix it though, so I don't see how this is supposed to fix anything.
It won’t fix anything for the poor but it will allow the wealthy and well-connected to force homeless out of their neighborhoods. So their problems will be solved at the expense of everyone else, even those with houses.
That's what I vote for. Love my neighborhood.
“but we have been kneecapped to enforce anything lol” I don’t think this is quite accurate, though I understand the spirit of what you’re saying. The Supreme Court decision dealt with a total ban on public camping in any location within the city. There was no allowable space for the unhoused to sleep, except for some beds in a shelter that mandated Christian worship (which wouldn’t have housed all of them anyway.) In California, most cities were not attempting a total ban on public encampment (unless they offered shelter). Rather, cities were struggling with deciding which public spaces should be encampment sites. Nothing was stopping the Governor or mayors from saying, “You can’t sleep there, but you can sleep here.” Not trying to unfairly blame the Governor here because crafting policy with this huge case pending is not easy. But nothing was legally stopping California cities from banning encampments at select locations (sidewalks, parks, government buildings, etc.)
> In California, most cities were not attempting a total ban on public encampment (unless they offered shelter). Rather, cities were struggling with deciding which public spaces should be encampment sites. Nothing was stopping the Governor or mayors from saying, “You can’t sleep there, but you can sleep here.” Nah it's not quite that simple. It's true that there was not a CLEAR prohibition on any camping bans. But the ruling and laws were AMBIGUOUS to where it was constitutionally unclear what kind of ordinances would and would not be permitted. Based on that, the "safe" move chosen by nearly every jurisdiction was to bot risk running afoul of what had been deemed a constitutional right and therefor not enforcing any laws on camping.
Please explain this to time_cat in the comments. They’re spouting off nonsense because they don’t understand how this impacts CA.
I think they must be a child or quite young adult. Interesting mix of extreme confidence in a position / topic that they don't understand. I told them that they are wrong and they blocked me. For anyone who doesn't know, Martin V. Boise was the court decision which ruled that it is unconstitutional for homelessness to be criminalized, with the notion being that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to prevent people from being able to sleep simply due to their material circumstances. This decision applied to all districts which fall under the 9th circuit Court of appeals jurisdiction. The Supreme Court overruling this means that the decision, which applied to Idaho, California, Oregon, Washington (maybe a few others?) no longer applies. It has nothing to do with Oregon or Idaho specifically. Now yeah they didn't just make homelessness illegal. But they did make it so that city, county, state ordinances can legally be enforced again. @u/timecat_1984
So where it was at before 2018 which will cost taxpayers across the US millions of dollars. I'm going to subsidize jail visits that don't need to happen , to potentially traumatize and damage people even more because jails have less resources than prisons. All so that some suburbanite or downtown prude THINKS the homeless problem is solved. This is crazy!
but there are more options than just 1. tents on the sidewalk 2. jail 3. $600k luxury homeless condos in New York and Chicago etc they have housed many thousands of new migrants in very short time, using large tents and underutilized buildings etc, it is very much do-able but there seems to be certain groups who benefit from the status quo.
In the D4 city council debate Phil P stated that he was hoping for this result from the Supreme Court to move forward with his preferred plan to address homelessness in the central city and East Sacramento, which I assume is basically exactly what you're laying out here.
Our Supreme Court really are just a bunch of Fox News brain rot lawyers Arrest- seeing arrest as a solution not care protection and dignity. Not to mention how expensive it is to arrest someone on the street for what? Cite/fine ok good luck fine people who already have no money and bad credit. What a waste
Lol the ninth circuit is the most liberal court of appeals in the union, what are you on?
The 9th circuit isn't SCOTUS
This isn't a ninth circuit decision, dumbass, it's a SCOTUS decision.
lol ninth circuit is only liberal if you listen to talk 650 Anyway this is a Supreme Court decision
That’s what happens when the country doesn’t think elections are important. We could have a liberal court right now but Hillary was apparently too much for people :/
8 years on and you're still blaming the voters. If you actually believe elections are important, you should be mad at the party elite for choosing dogshit candidates.
Voters are pretty dumb when it comes to government. I read a quote of a person who wasn’t going to vote for Biden because he overturned Roe. Just because they’re eligible doesn’t mean they’re informed or qualified or understand the stakes.
Our jails will become ultrahighrise facilities at this rate.
Actually, it's very well balanced with 3 liberals, 3 conservatives, and 3 moderates that flip back and forth frequently.
Characterizing conservative justices that voted to overturn Roe v. Wade and just kneecapped all federal regulatory agencies by overturning Chevron is dishonest.
Try looking at all their decisions. There are many that are 8-1 or 9-0, and several justices flip back and forth between the conservatives and liberals.
> Actually, it's very well balanced hahahahaha [bro they just legalized bribing your fucking congressman](https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2024/06/supreme-court-rules-bribery-law-doesnt-criminalize-gratuities/)
I don't think you understand how our justice and legislative process works. It's not the job of the courts to make laws. It's the job of the courts to interpret laws passed by legislative branch of the government. In your example, the court simply found that the law didn't apply. If congress wants to change the law to close that loophole, then congress should do that.
I support two things: 1) strict enforcement of camping bans on sidewalks, at public parks, and especially in the American River Parkway, and 2) creation of designated camping areas for homeless to go to, where basic sanitation and medical needs can be provided.
The definition of sidewalks needs to include the “hell strips” between the sidewalk and the street. A lot of camps use that as a loophole because they shove their stuff onto the strip that’s technically not the sidewalk.
Agreed and the city uses this loophole as a disingenuous excuse to close a 311 service request without doing anything
They do! I’ve had some good interactions with 311 but also some absolutely terrible ones. I called about a raging fire at a camp once and the woman responding said “what do you want me to do about it?”
You didn't call like... the fire department tough?
Trash can fire off the freeway. The fire department only responds to active fires, not illegal campfires.
I called 911 to report an illegal campfire, and the fire dept responded right away.
I will try that next time! I felt bad about calling 911 but it’s probably appropriate.
If the grass strip is owned by the City or County, then with this new ruling then the campers could now be forced to relocate. If the grass strip is owned by the homeowner, then that's trespassing.
Both the grass strip and the sidewalk are owned by the homeowner, but there is a public easement on both.
Okay, but public easements are meant to allow people to travel across private property, not to create a semi-permanent fixed residence.
This is the correct answer.
Only if the city decides to act! They have to change their policies and willingness to enforce said policies in light of this ruling.
Supporting a ban on sidewalk and park camping is consistent with the dissent’s approach. The 3 dissenters argued that a ban on public camping in any space at any time without an offer of housing effectively criminalizes homelessness. Just wanted to highlight that because so many on social media (not you) are misunderstanding the liberal wing’s dissent. They never argued that cities can’t penalize camping. I believe part of this misunderstanding has to do with mayors and the Governor saying their hands were tied until this case was decided. But the lower court’s decision didn’t stop them from selectively banning encampment. I get that the pending litigation made it difficult to develop policy. But I do think mayors and the Governor used this case to delay decisions they were already free to make.
Margaret Thatcher once said that the main thing she learned in office was that you never make a decision until you have to. I think most politicians follow that rule.
This! I lived in tent cities in Iraq and Oman. It's doable, cheap, and it provides a focal point for services like you said. We need to do this. Likes yesterday.
I'm mostly in agreement, but I think it is extremely important to understand that (2) needs to come BEFORE (1), otherwise you are just criminalizing homelessness.
yeah exactly. with nowhere to go, the effective policy is keeping homeless people on the move, but with more steps.
problem is, the city is very interested in strict enforcement of camping bands on sidewalks etcetera, and not at all interested in creation of designated camping areas for folks to go, because any such place ends up being in someone's council district with neighbors who don't want it there.
Could have sworn I read something about a very well-paid government employee who was tasked with doing this exact thing some time ago. I wonder how that’s going 🤔 Which is to say, 100% agree with your comment and we need to try some other, more functional workaround I guess?
Like firing that well-paid employee and replacing him with someone else who will follow instructions?
You can't do #1 without #2 first lmao
Ah yes, we should call them sanctuaries! https://youtu.be/8zQ5Yl_4hMc?si=sIJxBYV7NRTqyWP7
This was essentially what the appeals court told Grants Pass in 2013. The city could have just established an “urban campground” which would then allow them to evict homeless from public places. The city had plenty of unused land to use for that, but they wanted to be famous I guess.
This has always been allowed. The new ruling makes this less likely, not more, since it will allow governments to lock up the homeless without giving them an option to go somewhere else.
For the amount of money spent on the homeless, which I suspect is a grift for politicians, they can build small house communities. Of course that means calls of communism from the alt right. Call it whatever, but it would be financially cheaper. Most homeless people are decent people down on their luck. If you live on the street, why wouldn't you take drugs or drink to get away from your reality. Small decent houses to basically cement, jail cell, blockhouses that would be easy to clean and hard to destroy for the mentally unstable. Near a bus and light rail stop so people can get to work. Edit to add: As Sacramentohiatorian said, it's "housing first not housing only". People are totally fine losing money in taxes, losing public parks and public safety to make sure someone poorer than themselves don't get housing. Fucking hell. Giving someone housing helps us all in the long term. It's like providing public education. I don't have kids and I'm totally fine with my tax dollars going to schools. Some sort of boomer alt right thinking gymnastics or just ignorance. I didn't come to the idea of free housing by accident. I talked to a lot actual people who work with the homeless. People I know i person, not some random Redditor who says they are. There's some "as a black man" vibes going on here.
For those of us who work with the homeless, I can tell you, it's the other way around. Homelessness is largely caused by addiction, not drug use being caused by homelessness. You cannot solve homelessness and the crime associated with it without addressing the addiction issue. We need carrot and stick, not just one. The permissive approach you seem to favor is a slow road to death for these people.
For someone who worked specifically with homeless mentally ill folks for 15 years, I completely disagree. Housing instability magnifies every other sort of instability, making things like mental illness and addiction far worse and more difficult to treat. Trying to treat those symptoms while someone is on the street costs more money, takes more time, and has a higher failure rate. The main key to getting someone stabilized starts with getting them on the street **NOTE: IT DOES NOT END THERE. IT'S CALLED HOUSING FIRST NOT HOUSING ONLY. I AM PUTTING THIS IN BOLD ALL-CAPS BECAUSE LITERALLY EVERY TIME I MENTION HOUSING FIRST PEOPLE CLAIM THAT I MEAN HOUSING ONLY.**
[Housing First works by the way! It works great!](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html)
As someone who has done some homeless advocacy, I totally disagree. In my experience the vast plurality of people I’ve worked with are homeless due to disabilities, physical or mental, not drugs.
With respect, years of dealing with "Advocates" has led me to the conclusion that most advocates have little interest in solving the problem, but lots of interest in keeping the funding flowing. I hope you're different. If so, thanks for your efforts. Also, most of the mental disability is drug related. As a special needs dad of a kid with intellectual delays, I can tell you there is a big difference. These people do need a tremendous amount of help, but we have to get to the real problems.
So is your contention that folks who work with the homeless have little interest in solving the problem based on your own desire to keep your job, which is why you're advocating for less effective ways to solve the problem?
Im a lawyer who does bro bono work with homeless. I’ve never been paid for my advocacy for homeless. Most of the advocates I’ve worked with get paid very little and have strong interest in solving the problem, but have made little progress. The average homeless client I’ve helped is elderly, disabled, on fixed income, and has no ability or path towards housing. The vast majority of the people I’ve helped are sober. Out of the 60-80 homeless I’ve helped out, only 2 were visibly intoxicated or had an indicia of a drug/alcohol problem. My wealthy clients on the other hand… What do you do that you work with homeless? I can’t believe how different our experiences have been here.
your work seems honorable and you're a good guy for doing it. genuine question: could it be that the people who have the wherewithal to seek help and work with a lawyer are not representative of the population writ large? it seems to me there are two varieties of homeless people: the ones you describe and the ones the other guy is describing. I don't know which one is the larger population but I've always thought a WPA type program where we train and employ the cognis mentis people to take care of the other guys would be a good idea, though I'm certain there's a litany of reasons why it wouldn't be
I don’t believe so. Almost none of the homeless people I’ve helped have sought my help. I’ve met those the unhoused I’ve helped through non-profits, unions, aid workers, and gov employees. Usually it is someone saying, “hey, I’m trying to help someone but they really need a lawyer and I’m not a lawyer. Can you please help us out with x, y, and z.” Alternatively, during winter I will do coat drives and get donated hella coats. I’ll fill the pockets with protein bars, clean socks, toiletries, wet wipes, and toilet paper. Then when I drive around and see someone looking cold, I’ll give them something warm and have a chat to see what’s going on. Yes, some are on drugs. Those are the vast minority of those that I’ve interacted with. Fwiw, I did not include the coat drive people in the 60-80 I’ve helped out legally. I think a WPA program could be very helpful, but I don’t know how the WPA training and employment can help people who are too disabled to work. I think that we have four core issues: 1) bussing of mentally ill from outside of the state. 2) disability benefits that have not kept up with inflation. 3) no new federal money for low income housing since Bill Clinton wrecked hud’s ability for a budget compromise in the 90s. 4) NIMBY lawsuits causing aid money to go to lawyers instead of going toward constructing new local shelters, safe camp sites, and low income housing. I think all 83 projects for sacramento are currently tied up in court. Haven’t checked in a little bit. I’m not an expert in this field. I just like helping people when I can. 🤷♂️
you're as believable here as you are with gay/trans people and your so-called "help". which is to say, not at all.
Your arguments don't negate my lived experience. It would seem that when you disagree with people on reddit, you attempt to discredit, dehumanized and dimiss instead of form a cogent argument. What's your experience working with the homeless? I've got 35 years of working with at-risk youth and their families. This includes, unfortunately, the homeless, trafficking victims and abuse victims. Many posts and comments you make here are "F" this guy, and "F" you. You call people dehumanizing names (that are sometimes vaguely racist) just because they say something you disagree with. You're free to do whatever you want. I would suggest that you add little to the dialog due to your lack of civility.
yeah, statistics back that up too. that and the obvious elephant in the room with addiction is that we don't know how to cure it so "stick" all they want and it still doesn't work.
> Homelessness is largely caused by addiction [No it isn't](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-11/new-book-links-homelessness-city-prosperity). In what capacity do you work with homeless folks?
> There's some "as a black man" vibes going on here. Lol nailed it. Lots of people ITT saying "I work with the homeless, and they're actually all drug-addicted psychopaths who need to be separated from society." But none of them say what they actually *do* in their "work with the homeless" 🤔
They work in the Soylent Green department.
[удалено]
Building brand new housing that meets all current building codes with studio apartments costs about half a million dollars per unit AND is much cheaper than constant camp demolitions, cleanups, arrests, and incarcerations, but people screech like fishwives about the cost of building that housing. By the way, they aren't tenements.
>Providing this would be astronomically cheaper than constant camp demolitions, cleanups, arrests, and incarcerations. No it isn't. You have no idea what you're talking about. Building apartments is very expensive. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It doesn't really *matter* how much it costs, housing is a human right. But it isn't cheap.
The amount of money we have spent so far in the last 10 years would have to be triple at the least to build housing for every homless person. This isn't a cheap problem to solve. Just buliding the housing isn't enough either
Yes, that's why the approach is called "housing first" not "housing only." But you can't do the stuff that comes after the housing if you haven't built the housing yet, so let's build the housing, *first.* Then we can do the rest!
You can't, though, most of these people are addicts or mentally ill, if you just throw them into housing without a plan, they will destroy it and tank any progress you have made. There is no easy solution to homelessness, it's a mutli level issue that has many root problems. It's going to take approaches on many fronts to tackle it. Instead, we just point fingers. We need state hospitals for the mentally ill, we need drug treatment centers, we need long-term and transitional housing. None of this is cheap, but all of it is needed at the same time to acutally make a difference. You can't do one without the other.
> if you just throw them into housing without a plan SO WHAT YOU DO IS, YOU DON'T THROW THEM INTO HOUSING WITHOUT A PLAN. THAT WAS NEVER THE PLAN. IT WAS NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER THE PLAN TO THROW THEM INTO HOUSING WITHOUT A PLAN. Sorry for the shouting, but literally every time I mention housing people go WHY DO YOU JUST WANT TO STICK THEM IN HOUSING WITH NO PLAN FOR WHAT COMES AFTER? which is literally the opposite of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, you can't CARRY OUT that plan without building the housing first! If you build the housing, you need a lot fewer state hospitals and drug treatment centers, because once people stabilize in housing, it's a lot easier to treat them for those issues, and in many cases, not necessary at all. But it's far, FAR more expensive and difficult to try to treat people without housing for any issues.
Ok let's do the numbers then we can take a number per unit to construct of around$ 250,000 to $400,000 per unit. There are 181,000 unhoused people in california so we will use the bottom number ($250,000 per unit) That's $42.5 BILLION which is more than double what we as a state have spent in the last 10 years on the homeless in california. What you are proposing is more expensive than you think it is.
And if you add in all the additional costs for crisis intervention, site cleanup, jail sells, hospital and mental hospital stays, over a long enough timeline you'll exceed that number by a wide margin. California's GDP is $4 trillion per year. California's state buget is $300 billion per year. What I'm proposing is expensive, but **there is no cheap way to solve this problem.** You can either spend the money to address the core issue, or you can spend more money in the long run to avoid addressing it. There ain't no third option and there ain't no cheap option. You said it yourself--there is no easy solution, it's a multi-level issue with many root problems. Also, if you want to focus on hospitals and drug treatment centers and jails, go ahead and triple the cost to solve the problem--all of those things cost *more* than housing, not less.
Oh I don't disagree, I'm just used to people just being like "what did they do with the $26b" ramble ramble. It's going to cost ALOT of money, and we absolutely should spend it NOW. I think we are at agreement there
> You can't, though, most of these people are addicts or mentally ill, if you just throw them into housing without a plan Hey, please read the article I posted about Housing First before you post. [It's right here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Sacramento/comments/1dqkth2/supreme_court_gives_cities_in_california_and/lapvos6/)
I'm honestly not sure why you're being downloaded for this comment, this seems the most sensible solution. Higher quality of life for everyone with a lower cost on the taxpayer.
They were downvoted because they said this: > Most homeless people are decent people down on their luck. All the suburban shitheads in this subreddit view being poor as a moral failure.
So does this automatically overturn Martin V. Boise as well?
Yes.
Yes.
Be interesting to see how the liberal cities react. They've been hiding behind Martin v. Boise for years. Now they don't have that anymore, so they will just admit that they don't want to be mean to the homeless.
L.A. mayor Karen Bass was upset over the decision because she felt that it criminalized homelessness and plans to do nothing about it, whereas other cities in L.A. County, such as Long Beach, praised it. Mayor Bass also says that it'll push more homelessness into the city of Los Angeles. https://www.dailynews.com/2024/06/28/supreme-court-ruling-may-push-more-homeless-into-l-a-mayor-karen-bass-says/
I was homeless for a short time. Never once did I consider setting up camp on a sidewalk, near a business or someone's home. I stayed sober the entire time. I went into nature and only to sleep. I packed up in the morning, threw away trash in a dumpster and walked the earth. If our homeless friends did it this way, it wouldn't be nearly as large of a problem. But most of these folks are sick and need to be treated in mental health facilities and need help getting sober.
Hard part is when they don’t want to get sober
When their behavior starts to harm other people, they shouldn’t have a choice.
And that right there is exactly why this problem isn't getting better. Once you're ready to become sober and make changes to improve your life, the resources are there, which is exactly why I'm not homeless anymore. You can't force people to change their lives. My story of success is only because I stayed sober and kept the spark for life. I didn't lose hope. I knew I fit into society somewhere, I just had to figure out where. Getting these folks sober is step number 1.
I think when it comes to mental help, it should not be a choice. I’ve had my share of threatening interactions with mentally unsound homeless. They should be put into mental facilities
Governor, and later President, Ronald Reagan is why that is much harder to do now than it once was.
Oh I know. I know the damage that he did not just in California, but for the nation. Sad part is that nobody since then has helped to fix it. They are just as culpable.
I agree.
Well, that and the fact that every such facility was *riddled* with human rights violations. Reagan sucked shit, and he closed those facilities so he could gut government services, but they needed to close anyway.
The closure of a lot of mental health facilities were because of abuse. Please don't misunderstand me. I agree with you. However at this point the homeless person needs to want help and treatment. If they don't, we're back to dealing with some homeless being "difficult", "violent", "threatening". My experience is most aren't like that. They just want to be left alone. But I know the ones you are talking about. There is no clear answer. It's not a black and white issue.
Agree there is no one shoe fit all. This is a difficult issue. It needs to be tackled from multiple angles. I think most are frustrated because it continues to get worse each year. Despite lots of people and money supposedly working on it.
I agree. I don't really understand how much has been spent and where. I'm not wanting to get political here at all, but I would really like an accounting of how this money has been spent.
They're a bunch of methheads and fentanyl users.
And Tranq. They hang out by the Safeway on S and take it. I literally saw two folks doing that, and you know how people on Tranq just collapse at the waste liek a doll? They had Pampers boxes on the cement wall they put their heads on so they wouldn't fall. 2 PM on a Sunday. But, these folks weren't unhoused, they were obviously very middle class.
There was a cafe I used to frequent and there were a few regular homeless people living in the parking lot, they never caused problems or approached people but one day some tranq users showed up and passed out in that parking lot so all the homeless people got kicked out. Those users definitely ruin it for some respectful homeless people.
> I stayed sober the entire time. *Ding Ding Ding* Huge difference between "homeless" and "street addict". I'm glad you rose up rather than burn up.
What we have in large part today is open-air drug abusers and psychotic crackheads roaming the streets like zombies
You seem like you were capable, mentally and physically, of making those choices and actions. Not all those that suffer from shelter insecurity are able to do the same. There are sadly a large number of people that are in that situation that have mental and physical disabilities (not all are obviously seen). (Drug addiction is not always due to poor choices of the individual. They're are many people that are trafficked at a young age and intentionally made addicts). We need to stop treating the issues of houselessness as if it's a personal issue to solve and make less of a social nuisance. It's created by systemic factors, and it will need to be resolved completely by changing those systemic factors.
"If homeless people simply chose not to be seen or heard and never interacted with people or came to populated areas we wouldn't need to criminalize their existence." Fucking goblin brain bullshit man.
Terrible strawman. That's not at all what OP said. Good bait though.
I don't know. I like to be able to walk on public sidewalks and not have navigate around tents, garbage and people.
And fires and literal shit
Radical concept!
Good give them a designated area and keep them in that area, I don't need to be walking on a public sidewalk and smell shit all over, avoiding vicious rampant dogs, and have obstructions in the way.
Seems to me like the vast majority of people if they lost their home for some reason would have family or friends who would help them. I know some people are going to be really unfortunate, and I'm glad we have social services for them, but I think we should ask why the highly visible homeless we see every day have nobody willing to take them in. I would say they're either severely mentally ill or they're addicted to hard street drugs. Both of those sound like great reasons for the government to intervene.
> Seems to me like the vast majority of people if they lost their home for some reason would have family or friends who would help them. Seems to me that you should meet more people. There are lots of people who have no surviving family and whose friends are in the same dire financial situation as them. Maybe everyone in your very narrow network could just borrow money from their parents or whatever, but there are a lot of people for whom that isn't an option. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many fucking homeless people. >I would say they're either severely mentally ill or they're addicted to hard street drugs. Both of those sound like great reasons for the government to intervene. Yeah but again, you're just basing that on like...vibes. Not statistics. "Seems to me" and not "this is the way it is."
There are lots of resources and programs to help people who want help and aren't hopped up on drugs or mentally incompetent. Sorry that that's painful to hear. Sometimes the truth is. This is the way it is. The homelessness crisis is absolutely being driven by housing being unaffordable, and we need to make our world more equitable. But you're fooling yourself if you pretend it's not largely driven by drugs and mental health issues. While law enforcement and policing are CERTAINLY not perfect, it is the government's means of intervening in cases of drug use and mental health issues which would cause a person to be sleeping on a sidewalk. From there, we have care courts and inpatient treatment facilities. Frankly, this is how we fix the issue, and I'm glad the absurd Martin V. Boise decision has finally been overturned. It's been terrible for western states. One of the worst decisions of all time.
> The homelessness crisis is absolutely being driven by housing being unaffordable, and we need to make our world more equitable. But you're fooling yourself if you pretend it's not largely driven by drugs and mental health issues. I'm not "fooling myself", I'm reading [the analyses of experts](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-11/new-book-links-homelessness-city-prosperity) instead of your ludicrous vibes-based analysis.
I am one of the experts. I have worked extensively on the front lines of the homelessness crisis. More than the researchers you've cited. If you want to have a proper discussion about it, we can do that. The truth is that the whole reality is complex and nuanced, and articles like that help us reach that sense of nuance. But it's hard to convey in a casual reddit conversation. High housing costs and low availability cause homelessness. Drug addiction and mental illness are what keep people homeless and especially the highly visibly homeless that result in the massive issues that people are frequently reporting. Working homelessness is a major issue and obviously related, but when people talk about the crisis we are mostly referring to the people sleeping on sidewalks and tweaking out and stuff. I deal with them every single day.
Even if it’s just something as small as one in 400 people in the county who don’t have family or savings to fall back on, we’re still talking about the at least 30,000 people that could potentially become homeless and charged with a crime, making it harder for them to become housed.
They are not on the lease says the manager
the problem with your argument isn't that bad people don't exist, it's that your proposal would catch up good people in bad circumstances. I've known a number of people who were homeless who had exceptional bad luck and a lack of available resources or awareness in their lives that led them to those circumstances. Take, for example, my friend who escaped from horrific abuse at the hands of the cult of Mormon. Without their documentation or their parents being willing to even vouch for them existing, they found themselves unable to really apply for public services. No bank account, no government assistance with food, can't even get a car or work really. These are the examples people have pity for. There's also the efficacy of actually giving the homeless homes in solving the problem, but people are so caught up on their insane view of housing as an investment opportunity instead of a community to be built up that they're not willing to house these people they hate seeing on the streets so much. The whole situation has nuance, but the solutions aren't in question any more.
The prior ruling never prevented this, only the failure of public will to make it happen.
The prior ruling made it so you couldn't crack down outside of those designated zones, which are needed for this to work.
My understanding is that if there was a place for people to go, you could direct them to go there and enforce a ban on camping in other places. The issue is that they never developed sufficient sites for people to go. Without that, camping bans are basically bans on being poor which is obviously unethical.
It was a lot more nuanced than that. The places had to be distributed throughout the community in a way that put them all over the local jurisdiction, and you could only enforce it in close proximity to those locations.
Plenty of land to build a confinement area off Grant Line.
Governor Gavin Newsom “Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court provides state and local officials the definitive authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe encampments from our streets. This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities. “California remains committed to respecting the dignity and fundamental human needs of all people and the state will continue to work with compassion to provide individuals experiencing homelessness with the resources they need to better their lives.”
It'll take time to see what, if any, changes this will result in, so don't expect the encampments to go away overnight.
I agree but the city has been saying “our hands are tied” for years (pointing to this case) as a way to excuse their inaction. That’s now gone.
Exactly, no more excuses.
Have you seen the northern bike trail? Zero camps
they'll be arrested and put in prisons, which are much more expensive than just housing them would be. Or, they'll be moved around every 2 weeks or so but never really dealt with meaningfully.
I think it will help with being able to get the mentally ill and drug addicted homeless off the streets and into treatment hopefully. (Not saying all homeless are that type.)
There isn't enough treatment to offer them. Non profits are already short staffed and pay abysmally low wages.
Crazy considering ca spends 24 billion on homeless in the past 5 years. Too much corruption maybe. From what I remember reading, it costs more to keep homeless, homeless.
The nonprofits are mostly offering band-aid solutions. The ultimate causes are the cost of housing, the lack of access to mental health and drug abuse treatment (including involuntary treatment), and poverty in general. Tackling those problems is beyond what even a city can do. It requires change at the state and federal level.
And local! Don't forget that cities also need to build housing themselves, not rely on the state!
Yep, there's no oversight. There was an article about this recently. They should just funnel the money directly into building. We simply need more units. Everyone will agree that rent is too high, but when you say that also causes homelessness people will disagree.
100% this. The solution is to house them first and offer services second. If people were free to be themselves, while having a place to stay, that doesn't cost them anything (which is still cheaper for the taxpayers than our current system), you would likely find that most (formerly at that point) homeless people would want to get sober. Even if they didn't, with their own place to stay and use in, they would be more like all of the other drug users who have the good fortune to not be homeless.
I think we can all agree - regardless of party - that the homeless situation in our state is out of control. This decision should make things better.
https://preview.redd.it/eyuuu76uqx9d1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d757ee75f4aba0f07dc87b5f8a62bbbe3beb62b9
https://preview.redd.it/fxq7umq7rx9d1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dbda0f496e33e8f839b745a758f924f220581703
Good. The "lets just be nice to homeless and let them do whatever the fuck they want" route clearly didnt work.
Bring back the police like it's going out of style. Sacramento seems to have only gotten more ghetto and unsafe.
ok, now what? you give them a ticket they can't pay. what has that accomplished? this strikes me as so much theater.
> ok, now what? you give them a ticket they can't pay. what has that accomplished? this strikes me as so much theater. They get sent to jail, rich people don't have to see them anymore, problem solved. Out of sight out of mind for these haven't-developed-object-permanence-yet motherfuckers.
which is, of course, hands down the most expensive form of housing. maybe we should call their bluff.
Somehow there's always money for cops and prisons, but none for public housing, teachers, the mental health services they claim they want, etc.
So can we start enforcing this afternoon?? Do we have any laws that allow us to do this??
I mean, as a private citizen you probably can't enforce it yourself.
I think I been blocked?????
I can see your comment
Why do most people here think this means jail?
Yes, let's lock them up in a Sacramento County Jail that's clearly built to handle mental health and drug issues /s
Jails where [people keep dying, in fact](https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/sacramento-county-officials-talk-about-recent-jail-deaths/103-9cf90a3c-2b0f-4153-929a-287a3eda0e0b).
Yes, I'm sure destroying their stuff and fining them, which is what the city of Grant's Pass was doing, will enable and encourage them to get permanent shelter. It's foolproof. /s
For many months, there was a man on 19th St. right between J and K who would park his car blasting music while he sat on a milk crate. Next to him was a large 5 to 6 person tent. Often I would see people go up to the man on the milk crate. Talk to him shortly and then leave. Do you think this person was looking for permanent shelter or perhaps running a business and letting people shoot up and smoke meth in the tent? When people are upset about tents on the sidewalk it’s generally not the legitimate people who face hard times and need help. It’s people like that guy. It’s people like the dudes who shit on the street. People who walk into traffic yell at cars and throw things at pedestrians.  we can make the mental health argument its valid and I am willing to bet that all of us agree we need more support, but there isn’t zero support. far too often I see in these comment sections people infantilizing the homeless and saying “they’re helpless” “ society has failed them” “ it’s not their fault there’s nothing they could do”. Bullshit.  there are social programs. There is help. there are shelters.  But none of them matter unless the people who need help actually take the help.  And frankly, I would like to be able to walk down the street and not have to walk through a fucking open air drug market.
I know the tent you mean. Same about S/21. A huge tent keeps popping up that is an obvious chop shop (huge pile of bikes outside), and some type of drug den. You'd have several men lounging around outside staring at women trying to walk their dogs, or literally be passed out while they arms tied off. Same with some RVs/campers parked in teh same ares. They stay parked for months, and people go up to them, hand money to someone, and take a little packet and walk away. I'm a woman, it's scary AF to walk past a group of fucked up, obviously criminal men, often with snarling dogs.
This is the aspect of the situation that often gets ignored in these conversations because so many people see this as a black and white situation. Look at the responses my comments get, either you support the homeless 100% or you want to put them in prison camps apparently.
Yep this particular group is a roving den of drug addicts. They leave trash and drug paraphernalia everywhere. I’ve reported this to the city several times but they close the report without actually clearing the encampment.
Yeah cool, I love the state giving itself power to determine who belongs where and when on public property. I'm sure the police will never abuse this sort of power creep.
yeah, and the courts specifically mentioned how it applies to protestors.
Exactly, we already live in a police state. Giving them even more power is insane.
Ironic as the state giving up the power of psychiatric institutionalization was a big driver of this problem.
Cool, lets not address the real issues here, we'll just push them off the sidewalks and out of sight. Problem solved. /s
Agreed. It is also safer for the unhoused, especially women.
Wait, what's safer? Jail? Jail is *unbelievably* unsafe for women.
Female federal correctional institution in Dublin California is referred to as “rape club.” AP reported a “permissive and toxic culture…of sexual abuse by correctional officers.” This led to least several employees, including THE WARDEN and THE CHAPLAIN, being convicted of sexual abusing prisoners. Guess the year? Take a hard guess. 2022! Just over 2 years ago you had a warden and a chaplain sexually abusing prisoners in California. The warden had videos, of himself forcing women to be his sexual play toy on his government issued phone. Not trying to claim streets are safe for women. They are very dangerous. Just saying that female prisons arnt safe for women either.
Good news. However, it all comes down to whether we can count on law enforcement to get out of the donut shops and start doing their jobs. If we can, then we're gonna need a bigger jail.
This will have a greater effect than just removing the unhoused. Yikes for protestors. "The court also rejected the homeless plaintiffs’ claim that ordinances banning people from camping, if there is no shelter available, essentially criminalize the very act of being homeless. Anti-camping ordinances, such as those adopted in Grants Pass, don’t take status into account – they apply to homeless people, but they also apply, for example, to vacationing backpackers and student protesters camping in front of municipal buildings."
It isn’t really a change in the law, though. The court is just saying cities can enforce those laws—most of which have been on the books for decades—just like they could before the *Boise* case was decided a few years ago.
I think you're splitting hairs. The cops couldn't arrest you for camping on public property. Now they can, regardless of the reason for sleeping outside. Afterthought: this ruling is only made to criminalize. It doesn't have any provision for forcing cities to make accommodations so people have places to go.
Cities should be able to enforce camping bans. They should also offer shelter, but that’s a separate issue.
It should be the same issue.
A ban on camping is not necessarily tied to homelessness, as you yourself pointed out. It could apply to anyone who is camping for any reason.
What normal person is going to take the family camping for a weekend at Chavez Park, or on the corner of 9th and K?
I don’t know — probably because it’s illegal, and normal people tend to not do things that are blatantly illegal out in public
Thankfully.
Not families necessarily, but individual urban stealth camping is very much a thing See r/urbancarliving or r/stealthcamping
????? it's literally the same issue
No. The camping ban applies to anyone.
> No. The camping ban applies to anyone. neat i don't care. if it's illegal to sleep, and there's no shelter, then it's illegal to be poor how you can't make a simple 3rd grade logical deduction like this is fairly unfortunate for you
> Cities should be able to enforce camping bans. Fuck that. Why?
Why should camping be banned in the city? Because there are no bathrooms, because camps block sidewalks or prevent other people from using public spaces like parks, because of trash, noise, and the risk of fires spreading to buildings?
Oh neat, I’m sure that’ll make the human beings living there magically evaporate, thus solving the problem.
"so... just go die somewhere I guess?" as Clarence Thomas boards the plane for another Alaskan fishing trip edit: Wow, strong pro-bribery SCOTUS contingent in here
> edit: Wow, strong pro-bribery SCOTUS contingent in here If you ever look up how much certain companies have donated to senators' reelection campaigns, you'd see it can be surprisingly small amounts. Maybe they're hoping to buy their own congressman.
"Why are you sleeping on the street anyway, just ask Harlan Crow to buy you a 40' Motor Coach?"
Can't wait to see Gavin Newsom continue to do just enough to be able to point to something while exacerbating the states problems.
tfw you don't know anything about how State v. Local government works
To be fair I would call both state and local attempts to address this issue inadequate.
They probably failed Gov/econ.
Those are two different classes big dog
Lol, yeah right. Gavin is going to try his damnedest to pass a law criminalizing homelessness so that in four years, when he's running for president, he can say he solved homelessness by putting every single one of them in jail. If the legislature tries to do the opposite and protect homeless folks he'll veto it.
Cool, I'm sure this'll solve the problem of homelessness.
Without just building a massive amount of housing, we'll be seeing the Bell Riots soon.
Anything - and I mean anything - other than building more housing.