Social Can homeless people be fined for sleeping outside? A rural Oregon city asks the US Supreme Court

[Sinister]

I was speaking about Austin. This should be city specific. If there is adequate shelter, you should be able to ensure the streets are clear.

I can agree with that, when there is adequate shelter and the person is manageable (severely mentally ill arent easy to handle)...I'd also say you have to be careful how much red tape they have to go through to qualify for shelter because it's not always as simple as showing up.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I can agree with that, when there is adequate shelter and the person is manageable (severely mentally ill arent easy to handle)...I'd also say you have to be careful how much red tape they have to go through to qualify for shelter because it's not always as simple as showing up.

I think we’re on the same page.

I’m 100% for more shelter. I think you do have to work with local faith groups, but attending services shouldn’t be a part of the requirement.

The issue I have as a Christian is that many church’s don’t do service for service sake. You should help the needy, not try to force conversion.

If they see the light of god in your service then you have done well in your service.

 

[Seano]

]

How are making the homeless more comfortable if the very measures you think should be the baseline aren't even close to being achieved?

Well, you actually have to attempt it first. I don't believe a lot of people really want to fix the homeless problem. I think for a lot of people in this thread, what is most important is just being as contrary as possible, as pissy as possible, while basically saying its better to just do nothing for this people other than throw money into the ditch for them. Exploitation of them means more to some than the actual people living on the sidewalk.

Seriously, what is the solution? It seems that my idea of helping these people become productive, useful members of society is a no go for you, so what do you want for the homeless? Tell me your solution. You can't make being homeless lucrative, FFS.

 

[avenue94]

It has to be city specific which is why I don’t see the SC doing a blanket ruling.

If the city has adequate shelter, you should be able to clear the streets.

Possibly, but it's moot given almost no city has adequate shelter. And in the meantime, a ban on bedding is counterproductive, to say the least.

And if you're talking Austin, it doesn't have anywhere enough shelter capacity.

 

[avenue94]

Well, you actually have to attempt it first. I don't believe a lot of people really want to fix the homeless problem. I think for a lot of people in this thread, what is most important is just being as contrary as possible, as pissy as possible, while basically saying its better to just do nothing for this people other than throw money into the ditch for them. Exploitation of them means more to some than the actual people living on the sidewalk.

Seriously, what is the solution? It seems that my idea of helping these people become productive, useful members of society is a no go for you, so what do you want for the homeless? Tell me your solution. You can't make being homeless lucrative, FFS.

The people who don't want to fix it are generally local residents (particularly homeowners) and local governments. Who do you think in this thread is being contrarian and saying do nothing?

I've argued that housing supply and shelters need a Manhattan project style buildout, alongside the services that support them. This would in turn reduce the value of homes relatively speaking. And you can see why so no one ever wants to fix homelessness.

 

[Sara]

Where should they set up shop when there arent enough shelter beds or adequate affordable housing?

Serious question would you let them set up on your property? I’m talking about the ones that are not respectful and leave garbage and drugs everywhere, who start fires.

 

[Sara]

Look I think it’s stupid and mean to fine and jail homeless for just being homeless, public nature parks etc should be available to anyone who respects them. If I can go walk the trails have a picnic play tennis etc there for free, they should (as long as no damage to property is occurring) use it as well.

 

[Sinister]

Serious question would you let them set up on your property? I’m talking about the ones that are not respectful and leave garbage and drugs everywhere, who start fires.

Why would you ask if I would let disrespectful littering durg addicted arsonists set up on my property?

 

[Sara]

Why would you ask if I would let disrespectful littering durg addicted arsonists set up on my property?

Because that is who is also setting up on playgrounds and public spaces that tax payers can no longer use. It’s not anyone respecting the property, it’s people causing damage.

 

[Andy Capp]

I was speaking about Austin. This should be city specific. If there is adequate shelter, you should be able to ensure the streets are clear.

The term adequate shelter needs defining in this discussion, IMHO.

There are some places homeless people could go to but are afraid to use because they don't feel safe. I consider that inadequate shelter. Do you?

 

[Rob Battisti]

The term adequate shelter needs defining in this discussion, IMHO.

There are some places homeless people could go to but are afraid to use because they don't feel safe. I consider that inadequate shelter. Do you?

How do you define feeling safe?

Can we both agree there will be a percentage of homeless that will ultimately always refuse to go into provided shelter spaces?

 

[Sinister]

Because that is who is also setting up on playgrounds and public spaces that tax payers can no longer use. It’s not anyone respecting the property, it’s people causing damage.

You said you had a serious question. This is an unserious question. If someone is committing crimes they should face the proper legal repercussions granted they arent fully mentally inept, I am not advocating for people who commit crimes to be able to do whatever they want. I'm saying criminalizing homelessness on the premise that ALL homeless people are as you described with vague laws that can apply to you having your nice picnic in the park, if you happen to fall asleep.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Possibly, but it's moot given almost no city has adequate shelter. And in the meantime, a ban on bedding is counterproductive, to say the least.

And if you're talking Austin, it doesn't have anywhere enough shelter capacity.

It would if they didn’t mismanage the funds appropriated to shelter.

Thats my issue. I vote for shelter to be provided, it isn’t and what I get is more people on the streets.

 

[Sara]

And shelters have to have rules for safety of staff and other people using the shelters. I don’t think even those run by any church should force church attendance though.

 

[Sara]

You said you had a serious question. This is an unserious question. If someone is committing crimes they should face the proper legal repercussions granted they arent fully mentally inept, I am not advocating for people who commit crimes to be able to do whatever they want. I'm saying criminalizing homelessness on the premise that ALL homeless people are as you described with vague laws that can apply to you having your nice picnic in the park, if you happen to fall asleep.

No it’s a serious question. Would you let them on your property?

 

[avenue94]

It would if they didn’t mismanage the funds appropriated to shelter.

Thats my issue. I vote for shelter to be provided, it isn’t and what I get is more people on the streets.

I get it. Mismanagement happens, but in a city like LA, the issue is more the money gets allocated from state to county, and then it gets bogged down in red tape and sits in the bank doing nothing.

 

[Sara]

You said you had a serious question. This is an unserious question. If someone is committing crimes they should face the proper legal repercussions granted they arent fully mentally inept, I am not advocating for people who commit crimes to be able to do whatever they want. I'm saying criminalizing homelessness on the premise that ALL homeless people are as you described with vague laws that can apply to you having your nice picnic in the park, if you happen to fall asleep.

So you’re suggesting that every homeless person in tents is just down on his luck, not that the majority are the ones stealing and using drugs, which are illegal, damaging property also illegal.

 

[Andy Capp]

How do you define feeling safe?

Can we both agree there will be a percentage of homeless that will ultimately always refuse to go into provided shelter spaces?

Compared with all homeless people, I think that number could and would be very small in the right circumstances, and a much more manageable problem than it is now.

In any event, people often use, "See, that shelter has empty beds," as some excuse to blame homeless people for being homeless when the reason is people are too afraid to go there.

 

[Sinister]

No it’s a serious question. Would you let them on your property?

I wouldn't let people intending to commit crime on my property

 

[Rob Battisti]

I get it. Mismanagement happens, but in a city like LA, the issue is more the money gets allocated from state to county, and then it gets bogged down in red tape and sits in the bank doing nothing.

Bureaucracy IS government in most cases.

It has to be city by city by here in ATX we have the ability to utilize old hotels or open grounds to build more shelters.

We have an estimated 2500 homeless people in Austin. We could do this if they actually used the funds appropriately.