SCOTUS to hear Johnson v Grants Pass (homeless camping in public spaces) (Eugene: wage, to live)

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by Jessie Mitchell

I think you're taking things personally that are not intended to be. And I'm fine if you don't want to talk to me about the constitutional aspects, just skip over my comments. But these threads are public. It's not a private conversation. By "really hard" I mean difficult to resolve, not that I'm in a bad mood or something. I'm just fine.

Another twist. I didn't claim it was a private conversation; just tired of your twisting my words, the little snipes about how easy it is to walk by an encampment on the sidewalk (when if you actually LIVED HERE, you'd know differently), the nonesense about dog poop, etc.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

Plus you have all of the other members of the public that have rights as well including handicapped people that can't navigate sidewalks with tents there, etc. We regulate public property all the time. You need a permit to hold an event. School parks can only be used when school is not in session. There is no target practice in public parks. All of these are potential safety issues that impact the greater public. A ban on camping in public spaces isn't any different.

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

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by Jessie Mitchell

Just to clarify (for me), I'm getting a little lost in the syntax here, are you saying you believe the Supreme Court will find homeless sweeps are not cruel and unusual?

Yes, I believe that the Supreme Court will find that homeless sweets do not violate the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Apart from the points I already discussed about the history of the amendment, I'm tracking that the amendment deals with punishments via criminal sanctions. Homeless sweeps are civil matters as a general matter, so wouldn't fall under punishment to begin with. We'll see what the Court has to say, though.

[Jessie Mitchell]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Yes, I believe that the Supreme Court will find that homeless sweets do not violate the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Apart from the points I already discussed about the history of the amendment, I'm tracking that the amendment deals with punishments via criminal sanctions. Homeless sweeps are civil matters as a general matter, so wouldn't fall under punishment to begin with. We'll see what the Court has to say, though.

Interesting. The "punishment" part of the definition also piqued my interest. I first thought, punishment for what? I assume homeless advocates would argue "punishment for being homeless" but of course that doesn't make sense in a legal context. It's more a value judgment. Will be interesting to see which cities/counties move on this, (should the circuit court decision be overturned) and which are hamstrung by local politics.

[Igor Blevin]

Originally Posted by Jessie Mitchell

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

Yep, they sure do.


"Viral video shows a large group of kids getting off an SF Muni bus and having to wade through a crowd of people who appear to be using drugs."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2CVMCZ6F2M&t=70s

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by Jessie Mitchell

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

This may come as a surprise, but the homeless aren't the only ones with rights.


https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting...y-lawsuit.html

Portland’s city government has reached a tentative agreement to clear more homeless campsites from city sidewalks, settling a lawsuit from 10 residents who have, or care for people with, physical disabilities.

The photo in the article is typical of what you see in Oregon's cities. An able-bodied person would have to walk into the street to get around it, and a disabled person wouldn't be able to navigate it at all. I encounter this situation often when trying to take my disabled father somewhere. Looking forward to seeing our cities cleaned up.

[GotHereQuickAsICould]

A week ago, as I was entering the Elliot Bay bookstore in Seattle, a shabbily dressed man with a baseball bat was attempting to get money from those entering the store.

I reported this to the cashiers inside the store, and they acted like it was no big deal.

So I called 911 and the dispatcher started asking me questions. Was he wearing a purple sweatshirt? Did he have a bandana? ...

It appeared that the dispatcher already knew this man, and knew he was carrying a baseball bat.

While I was talking to the dispatcher, one of the clerks went out and told the man to move along as he was making the customers uncomfortable.

The whole scenario was just nuts.

Also crazy were all the tents all over the side of freeways, etc. Went to conservatory in Volunteer Park and there were homeless people camped out in the trees.

Surely, there is some alternative here.

[Jessie Mitchell]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

The 9th circuit court already ruled on this. Their ruling was that a city has to allow it only if they are not providing alternative places for the homeless to camp.

You know that the actual homeless are not bringing this suit to court.

Seems like the SCOTUS decision may have to pull in this argument as well as the "cruel and unusual punishment" question. Are public municipalities under an obligation to allow/provide space for people to sleep, whether on a sidewalk or in some designated area? That seems like it would impact towns and cities and counties in pretty wide-ranging ways that are hard to imagine.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by Jessie Mitchell

Interesting. The "punishment" part of the definition also piqued my interest. I first thought, punishment for what? I assume homeless advocates would argue "punishment for being homeless" but of course that doesn't make sense in a legal context. It's more a value judgment. Will be interesting to see which cities/counties move on this, (should the circuit court decision be overturned) and which are hamstrung by local politics.

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.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

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.

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.