Will Justices Thomas, Alito, & colleagues rescue Gavin Newsom?

[BabyBoomer50s]

Yesterday SCOTUS agreed to hear an appeal challenging a judicial ruling that established a de facto constitutional right to vagrancy. The case involves a challenge to the Ninth Circuit rulings that say the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits cities from arresting or imposing penalties on homeless people for squatting on public property if there aren’t enough shelter beds for every vagrant.

Progressives are divided over the issue. Many are using the 9th precedents to continue allowing vagrant encampments west coast along creeks, parks, sidewalks and freeway overpasses. At the same time, progressive mayors in big cities like California are feeling the heat from residents. The most prominent politician under pressure is California governor and presidential aspirant Gavin Newsom. The governor has argued in a friend-of-court brief that “courts are not well-suited to micromanage such nuanced policy issues based on ill-defined rules.”

This will be an interesting case to watch. It’s entirely possible that it could end with a 6-3 conservative/liberal split with left coast progressive governors and mayors cheering Thomas, Alito, Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Roberts.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article284180173.html

 

[YDB95]

If we're going to say they have no right to squat, I wonder just where we do expect them to go?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

If we're going to say they have no right to squat, I wonder just where we do expect them to go?

The issue in western states is what the definition of shelter is. The court will need to give municipalities clear guidance on that.

 

[YDB95]

The issue in western states is what the definition of shelter is. The court will need to give municipalities clear guidance on that.

No state needs the Coathanger Five to tell them anything about whether or not human beings need shelter. They just need the political backbone to address the issue of homelessness. This is just passing the buck.

 

[Chobham]

The issue in western states is what the definition of shelter is. The court will need to give municipalities clear guidance on that.

Donner Pass sounds like a good place to build a shelter.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

If we're going to say they have no right to squat, I wonder just where we do expect them to go?

Your place?

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Donner Pass sounds like a good place to build a shelter.

Tent cities in the suburbs.

Then, and only then, will you start getting serious solutions.

 

[DeluxAuto]

You do understand, I hope, that referring to past eras as a modern day talking point is stupid, yes?

Donner Pass sounds like a good place to build a shelter.

Your place?

Tent cities in the suburbs.

Then, and only then, will you start getting serious solutions.

You guys should read some of the texts that helped form this great Nation -- they wholly disagree with your anti-American sentiments.

 

[HisArpy]

IMO you have a right to sleep on public property wherever you need to sleep.

You don't have a right to make public property your "home." Public property doesn't belong to any one individual and no one can claim exclusive use of any part of public space.

This means the squatter problem can be solved by moving the homeless out when they decide to take up residency on the sidewalk or in the park. Where to put them isn't a government level problem, no one has a right to housing. That doesn't mean the gov can't give grants/loans to private orgs but those grants/loans shouldn't be the single means of org funding because that just means that the gov is camouflaging a gov program to provide housing.

For the homeless in need there are beds available in most cities. More beds could be made available if the gov would allow unused public space to be used for "temporary container housing" where shipping containers are converted to individual cubbies. They'd have to establish rules (60 days max, pay minimal rent, have a job, nothing stored outside the cubbie, etc etc) to keep the squatters out so that those homeless who need a hand up can get it and then keep moving up on their own once they're stable again.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

IMO you have a right to sleep on public property wherever you need to sleep.

Only if the use is permitted. Public land isn't public domain.

You don't have a right to make public property your "home." Public property doesn't belong to any one individual and no one can claim exclusive use of any part of public space.

True!

This means the squatter problem can be solved by moving the homeless out when they decide to take up residency on the sidewalk or in the park. Where to put them isn't a government level problem, no one has a right to housing. That doesn't mean the gov can't give grants/loans to private orgs but those grants/loans shouldn't be the single means of org funding because that just means that the gov is camouflaging a gov program to provide housing.

There is nothing stopping Government from creating housing. Nor from government paying for it, with your tax dollars either. If there is, please find the SC ruling that says otherwise.

For the homeless in need there are beds available in most cities. More beds could be made available if the gov would allow unused public space to be used for "temporary container housing" where shipping containers are converted to individual cubbies.

Lots of ideas, just no intestinal fortitude to act.

They'd have to establish rules (60 days max, pay minimal rent, have a job, nothing stored outside the cubbie, etc etc) to keep the squatters out so that those homeless who need a hand up can get it and then keep moving up on their own once they're stable again.

They (Government) can do whatever the fuck they want. It doesn't have to agree with what you feel is allowed. If they want to turn a park or public space into permanent tents cities, they can do just that. Public spaces are not owned by any one person, they are spaces set aside by the publicly funded government, for uses decided by that same publicly funded government.

Parks can and do have rules and regulations which the public has to follow. There are some rights, which cannot be denied to citizens in public spaces, but the public doesn't have the right to decide which activities or usages that will be allowed in that area . That power resides with the public governance agency "owning" the area.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The original ruling was a 2018 Idaho case called Martin v Boise. The case that SCOTUS will hear is a Grants Pass Oregon case that follows that precedent. The cities will argue that enforcement of camping bans in public places is a public health and safety issue and that adequate shelter is poorly defined and inconsistently by the courts. Cities like San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego and other western municipalities need to clean up. The euphemistically labeled “unhoused neighbors” often refuse shelter offered because they prefer camping wherever they want with no rules, sobriety requirements or conditions. When the likes of CA Governor Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed are counting on SCOTUS to overturn rulings by lower court liberal judges, you know the encampment problem is out of control.

 

[Chobham]

IMO you have a right to sleep on public property wherever you need to sleep.

You don't have a right to make public property your "home." Public property doesn't belong to any one individual and no one can claim exclusive use of any part of public space.

This means the squatter problem can be solved by moving the homeless out when they decide to take up residency on the sidewalk or in the park. Where to put them isn't a government level problem, no one has a right to housing. That doesn't mean the gov can't give grants/loans to private orgs but those grants/loans shouldn't be the single means of org funding because that just means that the gov is camouflaging a gov program to provide housing.

For the homeless in need there are beds available in most cities. More beds could be made available if the gov would allow unused public space to be used for "temporary container housing" where shipping containers are converted to individual cubbies. They'd have to establish rules (60 days max, pay minimal rent, have a job, nothing stored outside the cubbie, etc etc) to keep the squatters out so that those homeless who need a hand up can get it and then keep moving up on their own once they're stable again.

Here the homeless only use the 'shelters' during the most inclement weather and then only for the duration of that weather. The rest of the time they want nothing to do with the publicly or privately provided shelters. You see those shelters have rules, no drugs, no alcohol, etc. They won't even avail themselves to the counseling that is available for them. Most of the monies spent on their behalf end up in the pockets of the 'service providers.'

 

[HisArpy]

Here the homeless only use the 'shelters' during the most inclement weather and then only for the duration of that weather. The rest of the time they want nothing to do with the publicly or privately provided shelters. You see those shelters have rules, no drugs, no alcohol, etc. They won't even avail themselves to the counseling that is available for them. Most of the monies spent on their behalf end up in the pockets of the 'service providers.'

The answer to this is to place a limit on how much of the money they get can go to "overhead." 20% max sounds about right.

 

[YDB95]

Here the homeless only use the 'shelters' during the most inclement weather and then only for the duration of that weather. The rest of the time they want nothing to do with the publicly or privately provided shelters. You see those shelters have rules, no drugs, no alcohol, etc. They won't even avail themselves to the counseling that is available for them. Most of the monies spent on their behalf end up in the pockets of the 'service providers.'

I'm sure you've got a citation for all that...

 

[Chernosoth]

If we're going to say they have no right to squat, I wonder just where we do expect them to go?

Shit is fertilizer, which will become more valuable as we lose the imports. Fertilizer collection facilities may become a national security issue.