174
Supreme Court allows camping bans targeting homeless encampments
(www.cbsnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
174 points (98.3% liked)
politics
18076 readers
3093 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's not charging a homeless person for falling asleep outside.
It's offering them shelter space and charging them when they refuse.
"Hey, let's help get you into a shelter..."
"Fuck you! I won't do what you tell me!"
Which, unfortunately, is all too common.
https://apnews.com/article/portland-oregon-homeless-camping-rules-419270cc3c36417789affb2b05df4da0
"Those who accept offers of shelter won’t be cited, according to Wheeler’s office. For those who are cited, the courts will determine whether to waive fines. The ordinance says it encourages diverting people to assessment, emergency shelter or housing instead of jail."
The article and ruling isn’t about Portland, it’s about Grants Pass.
As far as I can find their ordinance has no such exceptions.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, it's no longer Grants Pass, each municipality can set their own rules and in Oregon, it's already been decided at the State level.
https://www.orcities.org/resources/reference/homeless-solutions/homelessness-public-space
"HB 3115 requires that any city or county law regulating the acts of sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry outside on public property must be “objectively reasonable” based on the totality of the circumstances as applied to all stakeholders, including persons experiencing homelessness. What is objectively reasonable may look different in different communities.
The bill retains cities’ ability to enact reasonable time, place and manner regulations, aiming to preserve the ability of cities to manage public spaces effectively for the benefit of an entire community."
You seem to be overlooking that SCOTUS specifically ruled that it is constitutional to charge homeless people $300 for falling asleep outside with a blanket, which is what the thread was about.
I get it, what I'm saying is Oregon passed HB 3115 in response to policies like those in Grants Pass.
So even though the Supreme Court is allowing it, State Law supercedes it.
That doesn’t really do much for the other 49 states + DC or say anything meaningful about the decision itself.
This is true, but because Grants Pass is subject to Oregon law, it's a little different for them.
What will be interesting to see is how big cities deal with the ruling. San Francisco, LA, Seattle, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia...
Badically any city big enough where you don't have to mention the state. :)