SCOTUS to hear Johnson v Grants Pass (homeless camping in public spaces) (Portland: crime, home)

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

At the middle of this is whether the homeless have the right to camp on public property.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/12/u...ps-oregon.html



This could affect all states under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court.

This will affect all states, period.

I think most expect the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit here.

Of all of the questionable decisions coming out of the Nutty Ninth, this was particularly nutty.

[prospectheightsresident]

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.

I don't think that's anyone's end state here, though.

How I see this playing out if/when the 9th Circuit gets overturned, though, is states/cities allowed to clear public spaces of homeless encampments and to prohibit the homeless from loitering in areas for too long. But, to your point, since you can't outlaw homelessness, outside of there being enough shelter space (and even then you can't force someone to live in a shelter), realistically the better-to-do/wealthier areas will likely benefit more from this, with the homeless left to congregate in less-well-to-do areas.

Here in Hawaii, I do look forward to being able to reclaim some public park and beach space that have been overtaken by homeless camps.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by Jessie Mitchell

Surely this discussion doesn't have to live in the most extreme ends of the opinion spectrum. If "the public" has the right to use public land as it sees fit, then we'd need to look at what restrictions (of any kind) would ever be permissible, and based on what. Public health and safety is one reason. Perhaps economic interests are a reason, for example, the homeless more or less occupy a place with retail businesses by encampments on the public sidewalks. Those businesses lose customers, which is bad for them, but also creates an area with fewer and more marginal businesses, which then generate less tax revenue for a city, and so forth. Another reason might be simple congestion, lack of access. There are others, I'm sure, but since the question before the court is based on "cruel and unusual punishment", it seems like the court will have to decide on whether it actually is cruel and (or?) unusual. If it's not, then the question is answered. If it is found to be cruel and unusual, then what would municipalities have to do to mitigate the cruelty of the punishment? Allow camping anywhere? Set aside a designated camping area as an alternative? And what action is cruel and unusual? Just disallowing loitering over the course of a day, or is it the act of waking people up when they're asleep? Making them move their stuff? I know my city would cite me if I left my personal possessions on the sidewalk outside my house, even though the maintenance of that stretch of public sidewalk is my responsibility financially and otherwise to keep clear and in good repair. Is it cruel and unusual to not provide a place to go for people with nowhere to go? How would police or rangers or whatever ever be able to know if a person really has no place to go? What if the rousted person just doesn't want to go to the shelter or the designated area? Is it still "cruel and unusual" to put less weight on their preference over the impact they're having with regard to public health and safety and economic impacts? It's just an interesting issue for the court to decide based on the "cruel and unusual" metric. How I feel about the presence of homeless people in public spaces is my own deal, but technically, legally it's a really interesting question.

First time I've ever been accused of being "on the extreme end of the opinion spectrum!"

Just so you know, I'm familiar with the legal nuances of the situation and the opinion I gave about looking forward being able to use our green spaces again, should that actually happen, was a purely personal one.

BTW, you're lucky that the worst that would happen if you left your personal possessions on the sidewalk would be a citation from the city. In most areas of my city, the stuff would be stolen within minutes.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by Jessie Mitchell

But this way of looking at the legal question leaves out the factor that the homeless squatters are also "the public". It's why it's such a tangled question. And if someone has put up a tent on a sidewalk, and other people can just walk by the tent, then that's just the squatter and the walker using the space in a different way, both as members of the public.

Have you ever actually been anywhere near any of these sidewalk encampments? Particularly the ones that function as "chop shops?" It really isn't as simple as "just walking by them."

[leastprime]

Originally Posted by Igor Blevin

It is amazing how you can be cited for loitering where posted signs prohibit it, but if you set up a crack house in a tent on the sidwalk outside a grade school, you have permanent legal squatters rights.

What is wrong with this picture?

Here is hoping the weaker of Trump's SCOTUS judges will do the right thing, and recognize that no citizen or non-citizen has the lgal "right" to perpetually squat on public land paid for with public tax dollars and designated for public use by the general public. Not parks. Not schools. Not sidewalks.

public lands = Socialism at minimum; Communism at worst.
Homeless, if they desired to vote, will vote GOP in its current form.

[Jessie Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Have you ever actually been anywhere near any of these sidewalk encampments? Particularly the ones that function as "chop shops?" It really isn't as simple as "just walking by them."

Oh god yes, right in the thick of it. That's why the settlement of this case and based on what it is decided is of great interest to me.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by Jessie Mitchell

Oh god yes, right in the thick of it. That's why the settlement of this case and based on what it is decided is of great interest to me.

If that is true, it surprises me that you apparently think that you can "just walk by" the homeless encampments on the sidewalk.

[Jessie Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

If that is true, it surprises me that you apparently think that you can "just walk by" the homeless encampments on the sidewalk.

This might come as a surprise, but people walk by them all the time.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by Jessie Mitchell

This might come as a surprise, but people walk by them all the time.

"Just walking by them" here typically involves taking an alternative route, when possible, or simply going out into the street because they're taking up the whole sidewalk. There was a recent influx of visits to emergency veterinarian clinics in Portland that was traced to fentanyl residue on the sidewalks where people were walking their dogs. Personally, I can live without using the local sidewalks for any purpose, although I'm sure that area merchants feel differently. Would be nice to be able to go to the park without being accosted by clearly unbalanced individuals shouting strings of unintelligible obscenities.

Edit: in residential areas here, it's the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the sidewalks, yet we're supposed to allow the homeless to trash them. FTN.


BTW, no one here claimed that they should be able to use public lands "as they see fit." I certainly don't expect to be allowed to conduct illegal enterprise, harass other citizens, or introduce biohazards to public spaces and wouldn't mind seeing all users of public spaces being held to similar standards.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Here in Hawaii, I do look forward to being able to reclaim some public park and beach space that have been overtaken by homeless camps.

Same here. There's a semi-rural park I used to go to with my dogs nearly every day that had a couple of miles of trails around a lake and through some small woods. The most sketchy thing you'd ever see out there was a group of high school kids skipping school. It's become such a hellscape in recent years that if you go there, chances are good that something bad is going to happen to you. People just don't go there anymore, even the high school kids who think they're invincible.