SCOTUS to hear Johnson v Grants Pass (homeless camping in public spaces) (Portland: low income, for sale)

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

Keep dreaming. You ain't seen nothing yet. It's going to get a hundred times worse. Over 40 years ago voters decided that the poor just weren't poor enough and the rich just weren't rich enough. No wage can be too low, and no rent can be too high. And that needed to be corrected. So we got trickle-down economics, aka voodoo economics. That train wreck is still going full speed and it's not going to stop anytime soon. Homelessness has been increasing every year for the last 40 years and it will increase every year for the next 40 years. All this will do is push the homeless from one area to another and then back again. But they will be everywhere. Including in your nice parks and on your nice beaches.

The City and County of Honolulu was doing quite well before the 9th ruled as it did. There was a robust homeless sweep program, where officers regularly cleared public spaces of homeless and their goods, confiscating their goods and storing them (temporarily) in a public clearinghouse of sorts. If the goods weren't claimed within a certain reasonable amount of time, they were destroyed. The program still exists, but on a much smaller scale than before. If/when the Supreme Court overturns the 9th Circuit in this case, I fully expect the local government here to continue with expansive homeless sweeps.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Yes, I think this was part of the expansionist idea of the 8th Amendment that the 9th Circuit majority used to reach its conclusion. But the current Supreme Court majority reads things much more narrowly and in line with the historic traditions of the Constitution. As far as I'm concerned, the Court may not even make a broad ruling on the matter, but is more likely to issue a narrow ruling that the 8th Amendment doesn't even apply. Still, I write this without knowing the full context of the law at issue, which very well may have criminal penalties attached that are being challenged. In the latter case, I'd imagine the Supreme Court holding that the punishment is neither cruel nor unusual based on the original understanding of the amendment.

Johnson v Grants Pass was specific to civil penalties, but the 9th ruled on the premise that the civil penalites could lead to criminal penalities and that therefore, Martin applied. I think this may be where the the SCOTUS will differ.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Johnson v Grants Pass was specific to civil penalties, but the 9th ruled on the premise that the civil penalites could lead to criminal penalities and that therefore, Martin applied. I think this may be where the the SCOTUS will differ.

Thanks for that added nuance. The Roberts' Court tends to want to rule as narrowly as possible as a means of building consensus, so I could foresee the Court overturning the 9th Circuit on the grounds that the potential for criminal penalties is too distant or unlikely to have tied in Martin. Indeed, generally speaking single civil offense can turn into criminal penalties if one does not adhere to the terms of the civil judgement or action against one. In that case, how close or likely such criminal penalties are to the civil offense (in terms of being actioned) may very well play a big role IMHO.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Thanks for that added nuance. The Roberts' Court tends to want to rule as narrowly as possible as a means of building consensus, so I could foresee the Court overturning the 9th Circuit on the grounds that the potential for criminal penalties is too distant or unlikely to have tied in Martin. Indeed, generally speaking single civil offense can turn into criminal penalties if one does not adhere to the terms of the civil judgement or action against one. In that case, how close or likely such criminal penalties are to the civil offense (in terms of being actioned) may very well play a big role IMHO.

I can't look it up because weather conditions are wreaking havoc where I live and my internet keeps going in and out, but from what I recall, a person could be subject to prosecution for criminal trespass if they'd been issued an exclusion order and that exclusion orders involved mulitple offenses.

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

But can't the handicapped people easily walk by the homeless camps on the sidewalks?

I'm assuming sarcasm since I agree with you that it isn't safe for most people as they have to go into the street, dodge needles, etc.

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

But the current Supreme Court majority reads things much more narrowly and in line with the historic traditions of the Constitution. As far as I'm concerned, the Court may not even make a broad ruling on the matter, but is more likely to issue a narrow ruling that the 8th Amendment doesn't even apply.

That is what I think they will do. They tend to steer clear of anything that might look like legislation which is what that obligation to provide them somewhere to go would be.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

I'm assuming sarcasm since I agree with you that it isn't safe for most people as they have to go into the street, dodge needles, etc.

You are correct about the sarcasm; another poster claimed that others can "just walk around the sidewalk encampments."

I worked with homeless youth in Salem a long time ago and understand the issues involved, but fentanyl and meth have been such a game changer that even the liberals in Eugene have developed serious compassion fatigue.

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

You are correct about the sarcasm; another poster claimed that others can "just walk around the sidewalk encampments."

I worked with homelss youth in Salem a long time ago and understand the issues involved, but fentanyl and meth have been such a game changer that even the liberals in Eugene have developed serious compassion fatigue.

That fentanyl powder is scary stuff. I don't see how this can't be a public health hazard as first responders have been accidentally contaminated by that stuff.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Making homelessness illegal is not going to solve the problem.

Disagree - It certainly would go a long way towards solving the issue. Not going to make it go away 100% but once the dog knows it will no longer be rewarded for pissing on the carpet, it will do a lot less pissing on the carpet.

[steiconi]

There are already rules about how public areas can be used. For instance, you can't park your car on the sidewalk because it prevents people from walking there. So it makes sense that blocking a sidewalk with a tent or pile of stuff or your body wouldn't be legal, either.

Parks are less clear. I used to live near one that had a huge list of rules posted. No frisbees, football, alcohol...and no loitering. Aren't you loitering if you sit in the sun? How is this park supposed to be used, just an empty space? Of course, the interpretation of loitering was left up to the cops, and some folks were allowed to enjoy sitting in the sun, while others were told to leave.

Parks on Oahu are filled with tents (or were last time I was there). If you weren't a tent person, you wouldn't be able to use the park at all. Is that right?

Not allowing people to block others from using public land as it was intended is cruel and unusual punishment? Um, no. It's not punishment at all. The US constitution doesn't recognize "a place to set up your tent" as a basic human right.

Are we doing all we can about "the homeless problem?" Hell, no, largely because "the homeless" are treated as a homogenous group, while in fact they belong to several different groups. There are drug addicts, people with psychological issues, folks who are just having hard times making ends meet. Maybe other types, too.

Each group needs its own solution. Some would benefit from job placement, others need medical treatment. Some are a danger to themselves and others, and shouldn't be out in public at all.