Homelessness

[IGotWorms 3,324]

What say you?

 

 

Helen Cruz racked up more than $2,000 in fines for sleeping in Grants Pass parks when she was homeless for about six years but now lives at a church feeding others who live on the southern Oregon city’s streets.

Almost half of Cruz’s fines came in 2022 alone when police cited her four times for illegal camping or scattering rubbish, court records show.

Cruz’s experiences will be at the center of arguments Monday before the U.S. Supreme Court that all sides say encompass the most significant case to address homelessness in more than four decades.

About 600,000 people are homeless in the United States, with about 256,000 living outside on any given night, according to federal counts.

The case has drawn more than 80 friend-of-the-court briefs from leaders of both liberal and conservative-led cities, homeless advocacy groups, public health and mental health professionals, professors, law enforcement agencies and religious groups.

Cruz is flying to Washington, D.C., to speak at a “Housing, not Handcuffs” rally outside the Supreme Court, arguing that affordable housing, rental assistance, outreach and more shelters are the solutions to address the nation’s homelessness crisis.

Advocates for homeless people want the court to uphold a ruling that barred Grants Pass from punishing people with citations, fines, arrests or jail for sleeping in public when they have no access to an alternative shelter.

“The city’s enforcement scheme is unconstitutional,” said Ed Johnson, who brought the case in Grants Pass as litigation director of Oregon Law Center after working nearly 30 years as a legal aid attorney. “Punishing the victims of our failed housing policies will not solve homelessness. It will make it worse. It will increase the number of people unable to get inside.”

But cities along the West Coast and across the country that are struggling with burgeoning homeless populations are pressing the Supreme Court to set narrower restrictions.
 

 

 

More: https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2024/04/supreme-court-to-hear-grants-pass-homeless-case-monday-whats-at-stake.html?outputType=amp

[Strike 3,999]

About what?

[IGotWorms 3,324]

Just now, Strike said:

About what?

The Supreme Court case that’s being heard on Monday.

Read the link.

But essentially, ninth circuit has held you can’t criminalize homelessness when there are not homeless shelters available. They say it’s cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment.

Cities and towns don’t like it because they want to kick the homeless out.

[wiffleball 4,649]

Big root issue is constitutional; 

You can't penalize homelessness in an environment wherein affordable housing options arent feasible.  Especially public land. 

End of the day, a lot of it goes back to debtors prisons era.

No expert, but I know the circuit courts are deluged.  I have no idea the answers. 

[5-Points 2,739]

I'm opposed to bums living in public. 

If you want to live off the land, go out in the woods, build a shelter and hunt or gather your sustenance. 

 

[weepaws 2,469]

Biggest problem the homeless have here, is affordable living, I’ve been involved in many meetings about this issue, and  some here seem content to make it illegal to be homeless, I don’t understand that, some of these homeless people want to be homeless, but many and the majority at least here in Washoe County don’t , but they can’t make enough to stay off the streets.  

The next four years this will be even a bigger issue, and more will be homeless, and some of those could be the ones that oppose helping.  

 

[Strike 3,999]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

The Supreme Court case that’s being heard on Monday.

Read the link.

But essentially, ninth circuit has held you can’t criminalize homelessness when there are not homeless shelters available. They say it’s cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment.

Cities and towns don’t like it because they want to kick the homeless out.

 

It isn't criminalizing homelessness.  You can be homeless.  You just can't be homeless here.  I have no issue with that.

[Strike 3,999]

5 minutes ago, weepaws said:

Biggest problem the homeless have here, is affordable living, I’ve been involved in many meetings about this issue, and  some here seem content to make it illegal to be homeless, I don’t understand that, some of these homeless people want to be homeless, but many and the majority at least here in Washoe County don’t , but they can’t make enough to stay off the streets.  

The next four years this will be even a bigger issue, and more will be homeless, and some of those could be the ones that oppose helping.  

 

They should pray.  God will take care of them.  Amen.

[lickin_starfish 1,483]

Either send the homeless to Ukraine, or revoke their citizenship. They will have instant access to all the funds they need.

[weepaws 2,469]

Being foster parents me and my wife see the struggles that people have that simply can’t make enough money to love on.  It’s a very sad situation, and one that the board I meet with once every other month about this issue has no true resolve.  

Here in Washoe they have been building what is called affordable housing, helping some out here, that’s very good news.  

[weepaws 2,469]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

They should pray.  God will take care of them.  Amen.

Says the foolish one at heart.  Take your meds and go night night, it’s adult talk time on this board.  

[weepaws 2,469]

1 hour ago, lickin_starfish said:

Either send the homeless to Ukraine, or revoke their citizenship. They will have instant access to all the funds they need.

Wrong.  

[Hardcore troubadour 12,709]

We should build a camp where they can concentrate on their problems. 

[HellToupee 749]

6 hours ago, weepaws said:

Here in Washoe they have been building what is called affordable housing, helping some out here, that’s very good news.  

Around here they only build “luxury “ apartments. They never build normal/affordable apartments and never ever affordable housing. But yet we’re importing bad hombres in record numbers 

[IGotWorms 3,324]

It’s an interesting issue imo. I mostly agree with weepers and wiffleball on this, but I do think, like strike is essentially saying, that cities and towns still need to be able regulate their public spaces and not have them filled up with homeless shanty towns.

I don’t agree that auschwitz is the answer and think you’re a POS if you do. Yeah yeah I know, joking

[Hardcore troubadour 12,709]

26 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

It’s an interesting issue imo. I mostly agree with weepers and wiffleball on this, but I do think, like strike is essentially saying, that cities and towns still need to be able regulate their public spaces and not have them filled up with homeless shanty towns.

I don’t agree that auschwitz is the answer and think you’re a POS if you do. Yeah yeah I know, joking

Lighten up Francis 

[jerryskids 5,215]

Yeah, Phoenix is under the current 9th Circuit ruling.  Every public building downtown has homeless people sleeping there.  It's not too bad though IMO.

Part of the challenge is, as weepaws alluded two, there are two classes of homeless people.  One, like the woman in this lawsuit, is the temporary down on your luck type.  They want a home and work to change their situation.  The other, and it seems the majority (I could be wrong tho), is the chronically homeless person.  Mentally ill, drug addicted, wouldn't take a home if you gave it to them.

I feel like we are trying to address both completely different situations with the same solutions.  And that is why we have epically phayled with this problem.

[thegeneral 1,430]

Tough subject with no real good answers. How the law fits into this and people’s rights versus the impact on communities makes this a situation where there won’t be a perfect solution. 

At the root people posting up and living in tents or building out structures on streets or in public parks isn’t good for anyone. It’s a safety concern for the homeless people and for people who live in the area.

IMO this shouldn’t be allowed with some basic rules like if you are there for a period of time like 3 days you can be removed.

Honestly not sure how reasonable this is but this should be the goal cities are working towards.

Housing, shelter options should be made available. Not sure what you do if those have filled or with the mentally ill people who refuse or an incapable of receiving treatment. 

 

[Maximum Overkill 679]

9 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Housing, shelter options should be made available

They are. Most of them refuse to go to shelters because they cannot get high there, and there's rules to follow. 

Reinvest in Mental Asylums. 

Unfortunately mentally ill people don't think they're mentally ill. They think everyone else is crazy. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,709]

Build facilities that are humane and open to observers. Don’t hire released felons for minimum wage to work there like they do in nursing homes. Get judges to grab their balls and order the mentally ill into the facilities.  Stop relying on sick people to care for themselves and take their medication. It’s not working for the extreme cases. Why would it? They are mentally ill. 

[listen2me 23 1,548]

A fraction of the Ukraine aid could build a few shelters.   But who am I to say.   Hold that line!   Or slowly relinquish.  Whatever.  

[Bert 1,095]

34 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Build facilities that are humane and open to observers. Don’t hire released felons for minimum wage to work there like they do in nursing homes. Get judges to grab their balls and order the mentally ill into the facilities.  Stop relying on sick people to care for themselves and take their medication. It’s not working for the extreme cases. Why would it? They are mentally ill. 

Yeah and you have to also deal with the drug and alcohol addicts.  The addicts and the mentally ill (same same I guess) make up the over whelming majority of the homeless. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,709]

Just now, Bert said:

Yeah and you have to also deal with the drug and alcohol addicts.  The addicts and the mentally ill (same same I guess) make up the over whelming majority of the homeless. 

I’d start with the mentally ill, many of who are drug addicts as well. But if the drug treatment works, they are still mentally ill. To me that’s the underlying issue to witch there is no cure. 

[thegeneral 1,430]

44 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

They are. Most of them refuse to go to shelters because they cannot get high there, and there's rules to follow. 

Reinvest in Mental Asylums. 

Unfortunately mentally ill people don't think they're mentally ill. They think everyone else is crazy. 

This is why this is difficult. It’s a free country. What process would be put in place to put people away, how is that run, how is this testing done, what is the process for releasing people. This would be a massive government project.

[Bert 1,095]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

I’d start with the mentally ill, many of who are drug addicts as well. But if the drug treatment works, they are still mentally ill. To me that’s the underlying issue to witch there is no cure. 

I don't disagree. 

[IGotWorms 3,324]

49 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

They are. Most of them refuse to go to shelters because they cannot get high there, and there's rules to follow. 

That’s not entirely false but also not really true. The town at issue in this Supreme Court case has no homeless shelter. And it’s a town of 40,000 people

[IGotWorms 3,324]

39 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

A fraction of the Ukraine aid could build a few shelters.   But who am I to say.   Hold that line!   Or slowly relinquish.  Whatever.  

Can you walk and chew gum at the same time?

[listen2me 23 1,548]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Can you walk and chew gum at the same time?

You dont like my post?   You can just say that.  

[IGotWorms 3,324]

Just now, listen2me 23 said:

You dont like my post?   You can just say that.  

No, my point was they’re not mutually exclusive. It is possible to beat back an aggressive Russia while also providing shelter for America’s homeless.

Especially since we’re the richest and greatest country the world has ever seen? Or do republicans no longer agree with that part?

[listen2me 23 1,548]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

No, my point was they’re not mutually exclusive. It is possible to beat back an aggressive Russia while also providing shelter for America’s homeless.

Especially since we’re the richest and greatest country the world has ever seen? Or do republicans no longer agree with that part?

Never said any of this.  

I made a statement.   Pick it apart if you want.  Dont need to go down the tube or arguing things I didnt say.  If you need to deflect then go for it.  

Never said you cant have both.  Feel free to fact check what I actually said.  

[IGotWorms 3,324]

A better (less convoluted) article on this case: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/us/supreme-court-homelessness-oregon.html

[Strike 3,999]

2 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

It’s an interesting issue imo. I mostly agree with weepers and wiffleball on this, but I do think, like strike is essentially saying, that cities and towns still need to be able regulate their public spaces and not have them filled up with homeless shanty towns.

I don’t agree that auschwitz is the answer and think you’re a POS if you do. Yeah yeah I know, joking

I'll give you a more complete answer:

it's unfair to the OTHER people who live in these areas to just allow rampant encampments.  The every day person who has a couple of kids, works, and just wants to live their life in a safe neighborhood that they pay taxes to shouldn't be subject to the results of these types of encampments.  These encampments not only take away public places like parks that those people PAY to have access to and may need to walk their dogs or other reasons, especially if they live in apartments or condos, but bring in drug users, higher crime, third world diseases in some cases, etc.....

I've laid out my solution in the past.  We set up buildings where homeless people can live.  Not little shelters but full on big old high rise buildings full of cots/beds.  There may be partitions between them to afford a level of privacy but we are not providing apartments.  We are providing a place to stay.   We also have counselors, some basic medical services, and job placement services at these places.  We do not allow drinking or drugs.  If you choose to be homeless, and this is for those who choose it or simply can't afford a place right now due to not having a job, then you play by our rules.  Just like when you were a kid and you parents told you that if you wanted to live under their roof you followed their rules.  The one thing I am 100% against is just giving people money.  For the most part these are people who never learned how to budget/save/etc.  Why would we just give MORE money to people who weren't capable of managing it when they made it themself?

We also need more mental health facilities where people who need that type of health can get it.  We used to have that back in the 60's era and at some point (Reagan??) we decided to stop investing in that type of help.  We should rebuild that infrastructure.

But if you choose to be homeless, are alcoholic or a drug user and won't accept help, or just don't want to play by our rules then you're SOL.  But the one thing you don't get to do is just pick a public place and call it your own. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,709]

It was Thorazine that led to the end of asylums. And the abuse. 

[IGotWorms 3,324]

39 minutes ago, Strike said:

I'll give you a more complete answer:

it's unfair to the OTHER people who live in these areas to just allow rampant encampments.  The every day person who has a couple of kids, works, and just wants to live their life in a safe neighborhood that they pay taxes to shouldn't be subject to the results of these types of encampments.  These encampments not only take away public places like parks that those people PAY to have access to and may need to walk their dogs or other reasons, especially if they live in apartments or condos, but bring in drug users, higher crime, third world diseases in some cases, etc.....

I've laid out my solution in the past.  We set up buildings where homeless people can live.  Not little shelters but full on big old high rise buildings full of cots/beds.  There may be partitions between them to afford a level of privacy but we are not providing apartments.  We are providing a place to stay.   We also have counselors, some basic medical services, and job placement services at these places.  We do not allow drinking or drugs.  If you choose to be homeless, and this is for those who choose it or simply can't afford a place right now due to not having a job, then you play by our rules.  Just like when you were a kid and you parents told you that if you wanted to live under their roof you followed their rules.  The one thing I am 100% against is just giving people money.  For the most part these are people who never learned how to budget/save/etc.  Why would we just give MORE money to people who weren't capable of managing it when they made it themself?

We also need more mental health facilities where people who need that type of health can get it.  We used to have that back in the 60's era and at some point (Reagan??) we decided to stop investing in that type of help.  We should rebuild that infrastructure.

But if you choose to be homeless, are alcoholic or a drug user and won't accept help, or just don't want to play by our rules then you're SOL.  But the one thing you don't get to do is just pick a public place and call it your own. 

Yeah I can get on board with all of that

One possible exception is building back up mental hospitals. I believe that was the 70s where they started getting shut down and it was due to concerns over civil liberties, essentially. Involuntary commitments take away a persons freedom, of course, and in a situation where they haven’t even done anything criminal (or at least they’re not being prosecuted directly for that). You had situations where people wanted to get rid of the old ball and chain so they’re drive her batty then have her committed. Or the mentally challenged would be committed merely just for that. And so on and so forth. Plus the conditions were generally pretty bad because it’s actually quite expensive to provide living and high quality care (see the cost of a good nursing home, for example). So you ended up with unsanitary and awful conditions plus low paid horrible psycho workers who would abuse the patients because why else would they take such a sh1tty job?

So I think that was an undesirable system and a return to that wouldn’t be a great idea, but certainly doesn’t mean that they couldn’t try something else because certainly a lot of the times mental illness and/or addiction is at play.

[HellToupee 749]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Build facilities that are humane and open to observers. Don’t hire released felons for minimum wage to work there like they do in nursing homes. Get judges to grab their balls and order the mentally ill into the facilities.  Stop relying on sick people to care for themselves and take their medication. It’s not working for the extreme cases. Why would it? They are mentally ill. 

My 3 pronged plan addresses this

 

1- people that don’t want to be on the streets & homeless get the help they need. Get them working, up on their feet and into housing. Give them a couple of years to get on their own

2-people that need medical help with addiction and mental health problems will get it. Goal is to move them into the 1 category 

3- people that refuse help send them to humane protected facilities where they can live how they like. Have a change of heart , great onto category 2. Sick of it all , give them a hot shot if requested 

[Maximum Overkill 679]

1 hour ago, HellToupee said:

people that refuse help send them to humane protected facilities where they can live how they like.

Good list but isn't #3 just welfare, which they're probably on already. 

[Maximum Overkill 679]

 

[BunnysBastatrds 1,926]

 Send them to the Hamptons, and all the fine places that the rich and shameless live.