In April, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a major case that could reshape how cities manage homelessness. The legal issue is whether they can fine or arrest people for sleeping outside if there’s no shelter available. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has deemed this cruel and unusual punishment, and this case is a pivotal challenge to that ruling.

The high court declined to take up a similar case in 2019. But since then, homelessness rates have climbed relentlessly. Street encampments have grown larger and have expanded to new places, igniting intense backlash from residents and businesses. Homelessness and the lack of affordable housing that’s helping to drive it have become key issues for many voters.

The case, Grants Pass v. Johnson, could have dramatic implications for the record number of people living in tents and cars across the United States.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Oh good. With this SCOTUS, I assume they’ll declare it open hunting season on homeless people.

    I fucking hate it. I mean read this shit-

    The legal issue is whether they can fine or arrest people for sleeping outside if there’s no shelter available.

    FINE people who can’t even afford a home when they have NO CHOICE but to sleep outside. And this even reaches SCOTUS? It wasn’t immediately laughed out of court? Not in America.

    I live some distance out of town near a highway. I have to drive over a small bridge to get into town. The bridge is still not in town, there’s farm fields next to it. But there’s a sign next to the bridge, in English and Spanish, that says ‘no trespassing.’ To be clear, this isn’t some person putting it on their land, this is an official county government sign. And yes, before the sign went up, people were sleeping under there.

    These people have nowhere to go. You can’t even argue that they’re wanted as bodies for the industrial prison system, because they usually aren’t arrested, just chased off. And apparently given fines they can’t afford now.

    I honestly have no idea what cities and counties expect these people to do.

    • Stamets@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I honestly have no idea what cities and counties expect these people to do.

      Die.

      They expect us to die.

      I spent half of my 20s homeless in Canada and was outright told by a cop that he would have preferred to come deal with my dead body. “Why don’t you kill yourself? Make my life a lot easier so I wouldn’t have to come and tell your lazy ass to move and get a fucking job. Get out of here. If I see you back here again then my boots won’t and might walk into you.”

      Most cops were spiteful and vindictive but wouldn’t outright say anything like he did. Most of the time I would ask for help. Like where should I go? Always afraid. Always nervous. I didn’t want to be homeless. I was terrified. I wanted to be okay again. But everytime I asked for help they would shrug and say “That’s not my job.” Meanwhile the people whose job it would be? They’re not funded.

      They just want us to die.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I can absolutely believe that, but driving people out of wherever they settle isn’t going to achieve that either. It seems like they think as long as they treat homeless people like shit, the problem will solve itself, despite that having been shown to be demonstrably untrue for, oh, I don’t know… centuries?

        • Stamets@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          They just don’t care. As far as they’re concerned the problem cannot be solved. If it’s existed for centuries then it’s because it doesn’t have an answer, right? They’re looking for the cheapest solution at this point because they “know” they’ll have to do it forever anyway so find the most cost effective solution.

          There are two.

          The first is to get them out of your city. Typically this is just done with a bus ticket. Relatively cheap but a lot get sent back or there ends up being problems with the other towns.

          The second is to kill them. There’s no one to pay out the money to most of the time and the cost of a paupers grave is considerably cheaper than housing or prison.

          It’s just purely financial. To people making these decisions, our lives are not worth the financial cost of sustaining them. It’s considered a drain on resources. It’s a complete depersonalization which is accepted by most of society because most of society depersonalize homeless people themselves either out of fear of unwarranted and random attack (which is rare as FUCK) or because it’s a reminder that their own lives could go very badly. Then there’s the propaganda people buy into and say that they either put themselves in this position with drugs or are dangerous.

          To the vast majority of society we are not even considered human beings. To businesses and the government we aren’t considered human beings. We’re just a statistic.

          • Evkob@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            To the vast majority of society we are not even considered human beings. To businesses and the government we aren’t considered human beings. We’re just a statistic.

            I read the news a lot, especially local news. My city has seen unprecedented levels of homelessness in the past few years.

            Who does the local media interview the most about this? Homeless people? Non-profits organizations trying to help despite lack of resources? Homeless shelters? Addiction services?

            Nope; the local chamber of commerce. The focus is always on “oh no the poor people are affecting our businesses!” and never on the people literally dying on our streets. It’s disgusting.

            • Stamets@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Who does the local media interview the most about this? Homeless people? Non-profits organizations trying to help despite lack of resources? Homeless shelters? Addiction services? Nope; the local chamber of commerce.

              This is the most telling part of what I said in that we aren’t considered people. The News reporting on it affecting everyone other than the people it affects because the news is for people, not for disgusting animals. Unless you can water ski and are a dog.

            • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              “Let’s cut some taxes for us to help us keep our businesses running.”

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            The whole thing just makes me sick. And these people also claim to love Jesus, of course. It’s amazed there are any Christians left after observing century after century of hypocrisy.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 months ago

      There are a bunch of common sense principles that you’d think would be obvious to anyone but apparently aren’t reflected in any laws. One of those principles is that nobody should ever be penalized for something beyond their control.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        They would just find some way to claim that it wasn’t beyond their control because they didn’t pull themselves up by their bootstraps or whatever.

        It wouldn’t totally solve homelessness, but it would go a big way towards it if we offered housing, a UBI, and medical, rehab and psychological care free of charge. But this is America.

    • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Their purpose is to serve as a visible (but not too visible) threat to force people to sell their lives in exchange for the money needed to avoid that fate.

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Yes, charging them money for the crime of not having enough money should solve the issue! Then we can pay to house them in prison instead of paying to house them in housing where they might have gotten a job.

    • Stern@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      “House the homeless? I’d much rather my tax money go to buying tanks for the police.” - Average NIMBY

    • Coreidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      But that would cost rich people money. Can’t have that.

      I mean you don’t get rich without exploiting people. You don’t get rich being morally responsible.

      This is literally a war. It’s rich vs poor.

      • thragtacular@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        “Why do people choose to live under bridges wherever they want instead of in one giant communal room where they have a cot they can be raped on when they try to sleep?”

        It’s spelled accommodation. For someone that supposedly graduated college you’d think you’d know that.

        “THEY” don’t refuse anything. Some people do.

        Not that you give a shit. You just regurgitate whatever your asshole uncle tells you to without thinking.

        Fuck back off to posting Fox News articles in your conservative circlejerk hut and stay there, shitbag. No real human wants to interact with you cunts.

      • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s what I said. They give out fines and arrests because they refuse to let people into the accommodations

  • riodoro1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I’m no expert, but making it illegal doesn’t seem like a solution to homelessness.

    Except of course they aren’t looking for a solution. That’d explain a lot.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        What conservatives fail to acknowledge about this solution is that the taxpayers are now paying to feed and house these people, in jail, at a cost much higher than if you fed and housed them in society in the first place with the added draw back of them have zero opportunity to improve their situation on their own when you have them locked behind bars. Then their sentence ends and they get kicked out on the street right back in the same position they started in.

        It’s all so obvious and I don’t get how so many people fail to see this. Jail is upwards of $100/day which comes out to ~$3000 per month. You could rent them an entire house for $3000 a month in most areas.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 months ago

    I am curious how they will rule. On one hand the Catholics are going to be told to not go after the homeless on the other hand Alito and Clarence are going to get a donation from the Chamber of Commerce.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      But powered by oil made from human homeless fatty tissues.

      So a biofuel, is good for you. Unless you look at your landlord funny, then it’s a bit harmful to you.

  • JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    The “problem” has gotten worse and is not just in the big cities. It is going on everywhere. A lot of these people just want their freedom to “be”. Most of the cities just want them to leave. If you offer them services, they will have to want them or at least follow the minimum rules at a facility (like be sober) to stay there. Some just aren’t going to do it. Period. I speak as a recovering alcoholic and know this to be true. I don’t think municipalities want them dead, they just want them to be somewhere else. Do they have the right to push them out? Will be an interesting case to follow.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      There is no “somewhere else” for them to go to, just a bunch of other places where people don’t want them either. Seems like everywhere in America just wants to shuffle homeless people around without doing much (or often anything) to actually solve the problem.

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        There’s nothing a city can realistically do except shuffle them around - providing assistance simply motivates more homeless people to arrive from other places until the assistance is exhausted and the city is left worse off, with less money and more homeless people.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Not criminalizing homelessness for starters.

          The actual solution is to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place, but that would be “socialism” and therefore too unpopular to actually implement. But housing-first solutions seem to work great every time they’re tried.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      At a certain point it’s the same thing. When the government makes it that hard to live, it’s just going you die and solve the problem for them. Disability is the same way.

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    … so it’s the USA supreme court that comes up with Soylent Green recipe?

    Actually kinda makes sense.

  • Leviathan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    How far? Like housing them and treating their physical and mental health issues? Legalizing drugs so that we don’t criminalize addiction? Can you really go to far too help people in need?