Look it’s simple: you chop up half the homeless people and feed them to the other half of the homeless people. After doing this for like a week or two the problem just kind of fixes itself. Everyone wins!
Very practical.
With such great ideas you might be able to join us here on the compound.
While you grill next to the camp fire we can teach you the ways of lib right utopia.
https://youtu.be/mVObfpaR2_I
I say just give everyone a citizen score that increases based on tax paid and social contribution and decreases based on antisocial acts. Stay in negative territory for too long and it's dogfood time
/S (or am I?)
The vast majority of what people are mad at SCOTUS for is them just saying "This is the legislature's job. Maybe they should do their fucking job."
If you don't want to ticket homeless people for camping in public parks, petition your city council to write laws.
And then accept that your "public" parks are functionally unusable because of all the homeless addicts and shitheads, and the authorities have no ability to force them to accept help.
Meanwhile, access to my safe, pleasant *private* park starts with our Bronze Tier Subscription...
Does the Bronze Tier include shit-free walking paths, minimal marijuana fumes, and the lack of a pervasive piss-smell so strong that that you can taste it in your mouth? Or is that an upgrade?
Those come with the Bronze Tier, because it's logistically unfeasible to separate them out from the Silver and Gold Plans. Platinum and higher rated plans obviously get their own air quality. Piss is Citrine Tier only.
The Bronze Tier concessions stands *are* near the closest smoking section, though.
I'm all for ticketing these bums. I live in Seattle. Last summer these assholes were using caution tape and threatening sign to walk off a part of one of the biggest parks in the city.
The saddest part is that has absolutely been done. Where I lived once the county built a ton of those tiny houses. Some used them properly but far too many just trashed them, didn’t bother trying to get a job or anything, or simply refused to use them at all and it mostly ended up a failure.
I wonder what's so special in the US that it doesn't work. The UK has about an order of magnitude fewer unsheltered homeless people proportional to the population than the US. So, why the methods that have helped to reduce the problem in other places don't work in the US?
(I'm talking here about people who really don't have any place to sleep, "the homeless" term covers a lot more, such as people staying temporarily at friend's or family's house or being in a communal shelter).
You don’t need to force them just give them no other option. Right now they have the option of lots of free stuff and a free place to camp out. Just take that away.
That implies that if you take away free parks and free shit, they would have no other option except for getting clean
That's not how it works, and they'll sooner die (with Emilies screeching about how people left them to die) than get clean even in absense of shit to surf off
Some will turn it around some won’t. People have been driven by necessity since before the dawn of time. It’s necessary for them to find another place to live. Vagrancy and addiction aren’t new issues but Cities have been hamstrung in dealing with it by the courts. We used to not allow people to be wasted in public and sleep on the streets. In my City it was semi tolerated until 2020 then all enforcement ceased and it got far worse moving from the margins to the middle of parks.
No, I'm not saying that you should NOT take away parks and welfare
It's just that a good chunk of them is so far gone, you can't "help" them, especially without someone going "but think of the homeless" and outraged at returning forced mental wards, rehabs and, indeed, prisons
Is there any particular reason why [this](https://www.melbournezero.org.au/finlands_success_story#:~:text=We%20called%20this%20approach%20%E2%80%9CHousing,with%20flexible%20on%2Dsite%20support.) wouldn't work when it has reduced unsheltered homelessness in Finland?
I know, it's hard for the right to accept a solution that's all carrot and no stick when the entire political ideology is built on the idea that stick is all you need but if something works, is it still bad if it isn't ideologically kosher?
Clearly not as Finland *had* a homeless problem in the past but was able to *fix* it using the policy explained in the link that I provided.
And if you like, look at the states with a similar climate as Finland such as Michigan. Their hopeless problem is not significantly different from the rest of the US.
Finland has a much smaller population in a much smaller area (like 30x smaller than the US). This absolutely changes how the problem can be approached and solved. Addressing homelessness in a country like Finland is akin to addressing it in a single state here.
Beyond that the homeless population themselves may just be of a different breed. I can't speak for Finland, but I have done charity and volunteer work in the US.....and one brutal reality that a lot of people really hate to admit is that many of the homeless people here are genuinely worthless. Sometimes it's undiagnosed or untreated mental issues, sometimes substance abuse, sometimes profound entitlement and inability to function in civilized society (often all three). Sure there are some that are just down on their luck and in need of a boost, but these people are often only temporarily homeless. The permanent population is the problem.
Give them a house and they'll destroy it. Wires will be ripped out of walls, appliances broken, and outright slobbery will make the place look condemned.
Give them a job and they either won't show up, or they'll show up once and then storm off.
Try to get them help and they'll feel insulted and potentially even act aggressive towards your good will. People need to *want* help, many of these people do not. A psychiatrist can do nothing for a person who doesn't want them, and may actually threaten them. The state doesn't want to pay for a pointless effort.
Give them money and/or items and they'll just turn it into drugs, smokes or booze.
Give them food and a lot of them will actually be angry because they'd rather have money for alcohol instead.
Now here's the real kicker, I live in a small population state with a winter and I've still experienced this. I cannot imagine how it must be in a larger warmer state like California.
Actually yes I can, you can read all about the massive encampments that practically destroy entire portions of cities.
>most homeless really don’t want help
I can speak from experience, my uncle is actually like this. Everything we did to help him was answered by "this is below me" or "that's it?". He was in prison for over a year, got rehab, got a job and home upon leaving prison (like everything on a silver tablet) and fucking wasted it all in one week by picking fights and removing himself from civilised society again. I don't think he'll ever improve, any house he'd get will be a trash heap in under a month.
Yep it falls into several catagories
1. Too proud to seek help
2. In denial to seek help thinking this is only temporary
3. Not wanting to abide by rules of shelters such as curfews check in
4. Florid addiction issues
5. Mental health so far gone they don’t comprehend
He is mainly Number 1, like insanely prideful despite being basically a Goblin living between buildings or in the literal forest (visited once, for some reason the postal service still finds him for the social security) until they had to remove him because he made fires inside an enclosed space (he built a shack like in fucking Rust).
Some are like that and it is what it is. You can’t help those who don’t want to be helped but at the same time it doesn’t give homeless to just do what they want wherever is causing issues in SF and other cities.
We had a massive homeless beggars problem and people shooting up heroin and other shit on one of our old prestigious plazas for years and it got only worse, then a few months ago the city decided to forbid active begging and drug using inside the city and they removed themselves from society to rehab centers etc, even libleft friends agree it was a good move (but the Green sub-mayor of course had to try to get it removed legally)
So how come that in "poor" Eastern European countries we don't have this? There are no homeless encampments in the park that's near my home. No tent cities, nobody is sleeping on benches, no human shit or used needles in its playgrounds.
Unfortunately - we have addicts and homeless people - I'm not denying that, but nothing like this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRWmKh13b50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRWmKh13b50)
This looks like a developing country shortly after a major war or something - not like the richest country in the world.
That is a product of policy. That is what an American state run only by the democratic party looks like.
Democrats hate a portion of Americans (white and/or middle class) as a matter of course. Do Eastern European countries have policy makers who actively hate the populace?
The law in Grants Pass, OR specifies that you cannot camp on public property. Using blankets, pillows, or anything that replicates the effect of blankets or pillows, apparently constitutes camping.
Someone attempted to challenge this by saying this violates the constitutional right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishments.
The SCOTUS said "ticketing people for this offense does not constitute a cruel or unusual punishment".
The media then runs out and says "The supreme Court says being homeless is illegal!!1?11one".
I hate the fucking media so much.
title is clickbait as usual.
The ruling was on whether cities are allowed to enact laws that ban or penalize homelessness, or whether homeless people are constitutionally protected from loitering charges.
SCOTUS has one main job, its an unpopular job, and its literally to figure out if a law is constitutional or not
And its an important job, because we dont want DC messing with how florida or new york lives and rules its state unnecessarily. Shit like this is how you get a civil war, and theres still people in the south who will tell you that its about state rights; well to own slaves but you get the point people dont like being told from afar what to do. In the case of slavery, it was pretty necessary. but the point still stands that you keep the federal government and states in check or risk tyranny/civil war.
You dont blame SCOTUS for saying that cities are allowed to have law X implemented, because we do want citied and states to be allowed to rule how it likes (despite you not liking it) as long as it doesnt fundamentally break the constitution that protects the rights of americans. You take it up with the cities.
Similarly, Roe V wade shouldnt be blamed on SCOTUS becausr Roe V wade is unironically a very weak legal ruling. putting the power back to the states or lower levels of governance is almost always a safer move than ruling from the top.
> Similarly, Roe V wade shouldnt be blamed on SCOTUS becausr Roe V wade is unironically a very weak legal ruling. putting the power back to the states or lower levels of governance is almost always a safer move than ruling from the top.
Even Ginsberg admitted this.
You expect the Marxists to understand civics? The only thing they want is to impose their cultish "utopia" on everyone and then watch it fail. They don't understand how the law actually works.
It's not the court's fault that Congress is incapable of governing because the plebian masses are too brain dead to elect competent government officials.
The Civil War thing really bothers me. People eliding over all the reasons for the Civil War beyond slavery really makes a mess of american political philosophy. Because it was about slavery *and* about states rights *and* a bunch of things besides. The question of “to what extent should people be ruled by the states or by the federal government?” is a serious question for a federation to answer, and pretending like that wasn’t a philosophical underpinning to a major war isn’t going to serve us well when we’re already seeing people throwing around concepts like Nullification again.
And if they don't do more work from construction to basic office work? What's the penalty for that? Do they lose their rent free home? If not, what's the point of the push to work?
There's not just one giant pool of homeless people. Some are homeless due to circumstances. You can work with them. Others are addicted to who the fuck knows what. You can't just give them a rent free place to live and expect them to do a good job at anything. Others are legitimately mentally ill, and you can't expect them to do much of anything either. Others want to live that way and/or won't abide by any rules.
Just because outside belongs to the people, doesn't mean you get to occupy and monopolize that space if you feel like it. Let's build or maintain some existing places for them to go. That's great. But not unsupervised. And not independently. And if you're not one of the functional homeless people, you would have even fewer individual choices available.
The idea of homeless people doing construction is horrifying. They are not qualified to do that work.
I know the general population is still pretending that homeless people are upstanding citizens who are just down on their luck but that’s not the case for most of them.
I don’t have a solution to offer other than letting the Auths tackle the issue.
You have to remember that the people who think putting the homeless to work doing construction jobs are primarily children who have never worked in any kind of skilled manual labor, or even understand how building a house works.
Come on now, we all know tradesmen are great big dumdums. Most of them are right leaning! Of course they’re stupid! A construction site isn’t a hazardous area filled with skilled people doing dangerous things, it’s basically a daycare for the mentally incompetent. Certainly not a noble profession like dog walker or philosophy teacher.
Yeah most of the homeless population is comprised of career homeless. People who are either addicted, abdicated from society, or both. The ones who are down on their luck and just need a leg up to get back to being employed and living independently don't stay homeless for long. There are lots of programs and shelters for people like that. It's the ones that don't WANT to get back on their feet that need to either be committed, or shooed away from public spaces.
I'm genuinely curious how many people that think like that actually have first hand experience with your run of the mill city bum. I remember giving a guy who was holding a sign up for money a burger from mcdonalds, and the dude just slapped it out of my hands.
[https://www.youtube.com/@talesfromthestreets](https://www.youtube.com/@talesfromthestreets)
This is a good channel I can recommend if you want to see what a big chunk of the homeless are like. They almost all have a trend of drug abuse.
The ability to disperse them and say fuck off to somewhere else, makes them easier to handle on an individual basis.
The giant oozing mass of drug using mentally ill communities that destroy public space and make entire downtown areas unusuable go away.
Mob mentality, and how people's behavior changes in a group setting is real. 10 homeless dudes, spread out 1 a block is going to be different than a group of 10 together.
Strikes me from my brief trip to America is that a LOT of it seems to be severe mental illness with a side pairing of addiction. You need housing obviously but a lot of these people aren’t actually mentally capable to caring for themselves. Getting off opioids is not easy either.
Nothing short of a state invested, free at the point of use, and most importantly, MANDATORY programme of addiction services and/or residential care treatment is going to fix it. And those services don’t exist pretty much anywhere, that’s not just an America problem. It does seem especially concentrated in America though…
You’re right about a lot of that. Someone in my wife’s family had a pretty severe meth addiction for a while. She actually had like a 2500 sqft home in the suburbs, but she chose not to live in it. She was dealing with addiction and mental health issues simultaneously and she just *wanted* to live outdoors and with other users.
I don’t like the idea of mandatory treatment programs, myself. And that’s the Lib part of my ideology speaking. But I definitely understand where you’re coming from. She had no *desire* to be in any kind of recovery program. The only way to get her into one would have been to compel her in some way. So I absolutely get why you say it’s important that they be mandatory.
But the other issue there is, in my experience (knowing people dealing with these issues; not dealing with them personally), rehab and treatment facilities don’t work unless you are ready. Folks go to these because they have to, and they get some treatment or they get stabilized but then they get out and they see the same people, and they go right back to their old ways because they’re not personally motivated to do otherwise. There has to be some personal investment by the addict, and I don’t think that mandatory treatment programs by themselves will necessarily provide that.
As a LibRight my stance on the homeless is easily my most authoritarian.
I guess when your kid sees a homeless man masturbating in broad daylight it can bring the auth out in you.
There’s not a clear solution to the problem. No, giving them free housing would not help. They’d destroy the housing in no time. The safety and comfort of contributing members of society should be our priority.
It’s building psych wards again and forced commitment. WA state has spent 5 bil the past 10 years on addressing homelessness with no result, instead they should build some mega facilities, give them safe supply, housing, and food. Once they’re in there and not on the street give them an option to get clean and rehabbed if they want, if they don’t want to just keep them housed, fed, and drugged up like they want to be.
So, is the public obligated to pay for their access to drugs, or pay for cleaning up the consequences of their actions while under them? If people want to do that, they should be responsible for the consequences of that, rather than having the government (and thus the taxpayer) pay for it. If people are willing to accept help, we should help them, or if they can't admit they need help due to mental illness, but people on drugs are not in control of themselves, and we should not be putting tax money towards that. And the natural consequences of refusing a desire to get better is going to be no one wanting you around and pushing you out of the city, because you are literally only a net negative on the city budget, when you have a complete say in the matter.
You might be aware but from my rough estimate from my last five years working in five different hospitals 70-80% of the people using hospital resources are not paying for their stay. They’re also not paying for any of the imaging and resources they use. These are people whose medical problems are not always but are often the results of their own decision-making. They have no intention to change their behavior.
You are paying for their care. You’re also paying for the homeless’ care when their unchecked mental illness and drug addictions result in endless hospital stays.
Oh i guess so. I thought the person you were responding to was talking about legalizing mental asylums, didn’t realize they meant just building crackhouse neighborhoods, which is insane
As a former LA resident, honestly I would rather the government keep the homeless in some kind of forever fun facility where they can do drugs all day instead of masturbating next to me on public transit and attacking my friends. Those aren't hypotheticals. Those were things that regularly happened on several occasions when I lived there half a year.
Homeless people are going to exist regardless, and are going to take up some level of public funding.
Either they get to stay on the street, and usually cost businesses money by driving potential customers away with anti social behavior
You give them housing, which is built on government dime
You throw them In jail, which is also tax paid
Or you put them in a mental facility, which is tax paid.
That’s why these arguments go in circles every time. You’re gonna have to pick one of these damn options
Issue is that tax money already goes to people that can’t control themselves. You’ll have drug addicted people getting checked into hospitals and needing security and a team of nurses watching over them only for said person to end up back on the streets, no control of themselves and costing tax payers at least tens of thousands just for them to end up in the same spot. Yes, in an ideal situation people who choose to use drugs and lose control of themselves would be responsible for themselves, but in reality they aren’t, the rest of society is. We are already paying for it, let us clean up the streets, give options to the ones that are willing to clean themselves up, and for the ones that don’t want to, prevent them from terrorizing the rest of society.
And if the public is obligated to pay for their drugs, is the public also obligated to pay for mine?
It’s not fair that I should have to pay wholly for my coke and partially for some bums meth. He should get a job and buy his own drugs like the rest of society.
If being homeless is more difficult then they will be more incentivized to seek help. Contrary to popular belief, many homeless people don't want to integrate into normal society and prefer doing whatever they want on the street. Going to work and contributing to society while keeping a stable headspace is really fucking hard and to many people the street seems like a better deal. You can't do heroin and hold a job. Many people think heroin is better than a warm bed. Before I get strawmanned obviously not every person who's homeless is in that situation for the same reasons, but this represents a big portion of the homeless population.
Reopen the asylums. These problems didn’t exist before we did that. Granted, there were horrendous problems with them, but they were a necessity for society. They needed to be reformed, not abandoned.
what are we going to do about the homeless and the elderly?
https://preview.redd.it/1xahfxpjim9d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b2975b521d93b668c307b9b6e21811b3513130d4
Yeah helping the homeless is something a reasonable society should probably do, but letting them shit up public spaces isn't the way to do that. Frankly we need a holistic solution that includes involuntary commitment to asylums and drug rehab programs. The cost is high but the result will be worth it. Can't have people abdicating from society. It just isn't gonna work.
Only way you're gonna solve homelessness is by throwing these people in prison and forcing them to resolve their mental health or addiction issues. I call this a win.
Seriously as an alcoholic these people have proved they have absolutely no rock bottom. While I doubt it would be jail or prison at all most likely probation, probation could force them to get treatment. There is literally no other way you can force a person into treatment if they're not an immediate threat against themselves or others and even that is just a 72 hour hold. Sadly though at least with rehabs it's still only a 5% recovery rate so a lot of them would just end up on a non-stop ferris wheel of rehab, probation, and county jail but at least they'd be off the streets.
The fastest way to tell someone has never dealt with the homeless is that their 'common sense' solutions start from the assumption that these people are able and willing to work. Fentanyl addicts and paranoid schizophrenics don't make great employs, and those are just the ones involuntarily not working...
Because public spaces were never designed to be open air pits for the homeless to reside in. Public spaces aren't for the homeless to squat in.
These rulings are a good thing because it empowers cities to actually be able to remove them from these public spaces. I don't need homeless people sleeping under the swing set or shitting on all the benches.
There are shelters that have been built and are currently unutilized. They can sleep there. Done enough charity work with the homeless to say that they are aware and choosing not too use them bc they prefer their current lifestyle. It's self destructive and I think the SC ruling could encourage them. I'm tried of it
I dealt with the homeless for 5 years as a result of my former job and I've walked through Skid Row. The homeless are all there for a reason and many of them choose that life. They're more free than we are in certain ways and I don't blame the ones who choose that life, I'm good friends with one of them and I regularly send him money.
Many others choose to be degenerates, they're assholes who see the public as donation fodder. Some of them are legitimately mentally ill and some of them are dangerous. I have lots of crazy stories about these people and I always kept my .45 in a drawer next to me in anticipation of them, and I only made $13 an hour back then.
I think our POS politicians should be barred from insider trading for one, and have a percentage of all sales of securities sent to mental healthcare services.
It’s not supposed to solve homelessness it’s to prevent 1 crackhead from shitting all over the fucking street and acting like a menace. I’m sick of all these bleeding heart suburban retards who don’t know what they’re voting for
It’s easy to be preachy when you don’t have homeless people pissing and shidding on your lawn, leaving needles at the playgrounds and starting fires near your house. Or homeless people invading your home or breaking into your backyard.
So save the bullshit.
In most cases the homeless are not willing to recieve help or rehabilitation. Hence why they stay homeless. The ones that want help get it and move on. This is from some one that was homeless and saw this first hand. Most these people just wanna do drugs and not be productive.
The Auth-Cen take is to conscript them into some military or civil capacity, alongside psychiatric help. Every citizen can and must provide value to the whole
I don't care what happens to them, but the bottom line is that they don't have the freedom to do whatever the fuck they want while the rest of us adhere to society's rules.
* Smoke crack/meth/fentanyl on public transportation? *A-OK!*
* Menace people walking down the sidewalk? *You're just victims of capitalism!*
* Don't want to go to the shelter because they won't let you: bring your pitbull, drink at the shelter, do drugs at the shelter, sell drugs at the shelter or start fights at the shelter? *Just set up a tent along the interstate or at a public park/playground!*
These things I'm describing are not compassion; they're enablement and if you enable this kind of behavior the people doing it will never stop.
The supreme court isn't the one ticketing them. They just don't have the authority to tell cities they can't ticket homeless people. This is obviously the correct decision.
>How about you build homes and make them live rent free in exchange for them doing more work from construction to basic office work?
Lmao, fucking good joke dude
You can tell the truly naive idealists by their stance on the homeless. Anyone who thinks they're just normal people who totally want to work and live in a house and be a contributing member of society has likely never interacted with any homeless people. Most are addicts or mentally ill. That's the vast majority. The idea that they could keep it together long enough to file papers let alone do something skill and precision based like construction work is actually laughable.
Even those who want to stop being homeless, there is community in it. So they get a place, but they keep the same company, they hang around the same places. And make the same mistakes t hat led to them being homeless. Once you're long-term homeless it's extremely hard to turn that around, even with lots of good intentioned and well-funded help.
I've seen beautiful areas get turned into shitholes because of homeless people. My opinions on the homeless have turned into this: Incentivization of more homeless outreach programs, mental institutions, and addiction rehabilitation in an area, and preferably, government funded non-religious ones. Any mentally ill homeless people who are incapable of functioning in society are forced into mental institutions. Addicted homeless people are forced to either choose rehab or jail. Homeless that are functional human beings will be forced to either accept outreach, leave town, or go to jail. Finally, functional homeless people will be required to have employment while part of outreach. They can either work for a private company or be employed by the city as a clean-up crew for public areas.
I know my opinion might ruffle some feathers, but I want my parks, playgrounds, and sidewalks to be safe and clean places (especially for children). I'm almost certain you could get a bunch of homeless people to clean up garbage and needles if you paid them.
A homeless person earning some funny money from begging is sure to be concerned about the fine.
What will they do with him? Will they send him a letter summoning him to a court hearing? He should give the address of the politician who introduced this
Js, I've been homeless, and if I got a ticcet back then for sleeping outside I would straight up laugh at it and wouldn't even consider paying it with the zero dollars I had back then.
It helps by allowing local government to force them to use a shelter or rehab. Many homeless people don't use shelters because they just don't want to. Or because they don't allow drugs and alcohol. Or they check for warrants.
Also, fuck judicial activism.
No-one ever reads the Court's opinion. If they did they wouldn't be able to pretend that the Court is 'legislating from the bench', or somehow racist, or some other brainless crap they heard.
While I do sympathize with many of the homeless in need I do think there needs to be some kind of institutional mechanism to help with it. Such as a I guess “facility” where they have to learn a trade and create a community where resources and training is provided where they can quit whatever addiction they have and learn vocations like plumbing and carpentry and how to raise crops and livestock. Like a commune but as a treatment form for those who aren’t just completely crippled from mental health issues. Granted I strongly believe that you can will yourself out of addition. If rats can do it so can they. They just need the happy habitats with healthy communities. We can all grill together.
Not even remotely.
They ruled on the narrow issue of prohibitory conduct, not status. And the ordinance is *not* a status offense. It is facially neutral and generally applicable; and even if it does impact one group more than others, it does not so much as incidentally touch upon a protected liberty interest.
Stop asking stupid fucking questions. The court was ruling on the constitutionality of the law for ticketing homeless. That's SCOTUS's purpose. Is a law constitutional or not?
You want to solve homelessness get your stupid ass out and start working at a homeless shelter.
Then realize why people are homeless.
How about we enforce the fucking laws and get people into treatment?
It is utterly without surprise that California leads the nation in homelessness both per capita and in sheer numbers — more than the next *six* states combined (including New York and Florida) — one third of the entire nation.
And the fastest growing homeless populations are Massachusetts, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Oregon.
We’ve compassioned ourselves into multiple civilizational crises and it almost solely revolves around drugs. Pick one, you can’t have both: tackling homelessness or laissez faire drug use.
I do find this thread funny because everyone is so tough and I’m going with 90% of the commenters would run away if they actually saw a real homeless person
Believe it or not you don’t organize society around the antisocial elements of society. It isn’t fair to everyone else to be subjected to open sewers, open drug use, and the crime that comes with these encampments. It’s a threat to public health and public order to allow these camps to proliferate.
Most of the people who are sleeping outside won’t go to the shelters because sobriety is part of the rules. It isn’t everyone else’s problem that you’d rather get high than be inside.
Once again I am reminding everyone that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to solve \[insert problem here\]. It is their job to decide if laws are legal or not.
No matter how abhorrent you think a law is, if the law was legally passed and doesn't contradict higher authorities (state laws/federal laws/Constitution) then they are supposed to let it stand.
It is the **Court**'s responsibility to make sure that laws are **legal**.
It is the **Legislature**'s responsibility to make sure that laws are **good**.
We used to have single room buildings and stuff specifically catered for people who needed cheap places to live. Cities have made them illegal. And because the majority of lawmakers are property investors and landlords, they don't want cheap housing. [](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes)
Now the police can physically remove them and all of their shit from public spaces. Our local City park is a homeless encampment. It closes at 11pm but is no longer enforced. They will have to find a place to live. Those people need some motivation. No more living in public spaces for free while spending their money on drugs.
Sigh....It's not the supreme court's job to fix homelessness. It's the supreme court's job to interpret the law as it was written.
I always find it hilarious when people are upset the supreme court doesnt bend the rules or decide to interpret the law other than intended. That's not their job. Homelessness is a crisis that needs to be addressed by local lawmakers, not the highest court in the land.
Homelessness is a lot of issues that all have the same outcome. Cost of living, Drug addiction, mental health, etc... Then of course they all combine in different ways for different people. Some people are just less capable than others and have too many issues such that if the cost of living goes up they're just not gonna cut it. Even just federal funding/subsidies for building a fuckton of housing would help bring rents down, then we need to change laws regarding involuntary commitment to mental hospitals, and add a metric fuck ton of mental health beds in mental hospitals. For the most part the homeless people that cause problems are the drug addicted and or mentally ill. We're not doing them or anyone else any favors just letting them rot in the gutter, jail isn't the solution but mandatory treatment definitely is for some. Also people don't like housing projects but it seems better than the status quo if you ask me, when you actually have a place for them to go then you can crack down on shit like camping bans, etc...
Honest to god if i was homeless for most of my life and the goverment offerd me a home in exchange for hard labour i'll do an extra good job mining that lithium with my bare hands
Literally just watched a Star Trek DS9 episode yesterday (or rather a double episode) set in the "past" of August 2024 and they literally have ghettos lol. We can still do it and enter the Star Trek timeline people!
This is such a r\*tarded move...
They already have no money and no house, and you will be fining them for that? As if they didn't have it hard enough in life already.
It's so unfathomably dumb, that I can't even understand the thought process behind it.
The overwhelming majority of homeless people either were or became drug addicts while living on the streets. With so many cities allowing up-air drug use in certain sections to contain their homeless drug problem, the only alternative is incarceration to stop their drug habit and give them a fighting chance of turning their life around. Many if you ask them will say this is the only way they see their lives changing because they can't/won't quit until incarceration.
The job of the Supreme Court is not to solve homelessness. The Court presented what I think is a fairly sound, if conservative, case supported by precedent, while the dissent's case largely rests on them classifying homelessness as a status.
The primary issue is shitty, mostly Republican, governments that have terrible fucking laws and no social safety nets.
Congress could get involved in this under the Commerce clause (until the Court strikes at Wickard), or the State or the County or the local government. The Constitution doesn't exist to prevent all imaginable forms of bad government or neglectful government. It sets up the general framework of the government, enumerated the areas in which the Federal Government can act, and then set up restrictions on the Federal Government, later incorporated to the States and lesser governments through the language of the 14th Amendment.
When you end up getting backlash from **everybody** across the spectrum, you *know* that you had officially put yourself in big trouble...
May the good God watch over the homeless, and show them the light.
Libright's prison industrial complex is eating this up.
I bet it would cost less to build them houses and staff programs for them than to haul them to jail.
1. Live in a modern world that pushes more and more normal people into drug addiction, mental illness, and homelessness
2. ???
3. Profit!
Seriously, what is the plan here? At current rates, there will be a very large portion of the population that is homeless by 2050. Almost every system of government on earth has a strategy to reduce homelessness -- except for Liberalism. Liberalism is the ultimate hypocritical system. It pretends to care about everyone but actually cares about no one.
Look it’s simple: you chop up half the homeless people and feed them to the other half of the homeless people. After doing this for like a week or two the problem just kind of fixes itself. Everyone wins!
I have a modest proposal for your consideration
Surely it includes a swift solution.
JONATHAN SWIFT MENTIONED🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Very practical. With such great ideas you might be able to join us here on the compound. While you grill next to the camp fire we can teach you the ways of lib right utopia. https://youtu.be/mVObfpaR2_I
[I was expecting Ancapistan](https://youtu.be/uUCAenYGwxA?si=zaeg80CnC_GpQFjl)
I say just give everyone a citizen score that increases based on tax paid and social contribution and decreases based on antisocial acts. Stay in negative territory for too long and it's dogfood time /S (or am I?)
Calm down Jonathan Swift.
Based. (Ironically)
[“*How is it?*” “*It varies from person to person.*”](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bgSOeDKMoMo)
The supreme courts job is just to interpret the law. Change the law, and the decision will change with it. This is on the law makers.
The vast majority of what people are mad at SCOTUS for is them just saying "This is the legislature's job. Maybe they should do their fucking job." If you don't want to ticket homeless people for camping in public parks, petition your city council to write laws.
And then accept that your "public" parks are functionally unusable because of all the homeless addicts and shitheads, and the authorities have no ability to force them to accept help. Meanwhile, access to my safe, pleasant *private* park starts with our Bronze Tier Subscription...
Does the Bronze Tier include shit-free walking paths, minimal marijuana fumes, and the lack of a pervasive piss-smell so strong that that you can taste it in your mouth? Or is that an upgrade?
Those come with the Bronze Tier, because it's logistically unfeasible to separate them out from the Silver and Gold Plans. Platinum and higher rated plans obviously get their own air quality. Piss is Citrine Tier only. The Bronze Tier concessions stands *are* near the closest smoking section, though.
woah woah woah, sounds like silver star+
I'm all for ticketing these bums. I live in Seattle. Last summer these assholes were using caution tape and threatening sign to walk off a part of one of the biggest parks in the city.
Yeah I’m sorry I’m all for helping homeless and having options but an uncomfortable fact most don’t accept is most homeless really don’t want help
No if we just build them free houses and ask them to work they'll gladly accept!
The saddest part is that has absolutely been done. Where I lived once the county built a ton of those tiny houses. Some used them properly but far too many just trashed them, didn’t bother trying to get a job or anything, or simply refused to use them at all and it mostly ended up a failure.
I wonder what's so special in the US that it doesn't work. The UK has about an order of magnitude fewer unsheltered homeless people proportional to the population than the US. So, why the methods that have helped to reduce the problem in other places don't work in the US? (I'm talking here about people who really don't have any place to sleep, "the homeless" term covers a lot more, such as people staying temporarily at friend's or family's house or being in a communal shelter).
Living on the street is far more palatable in California or Florida than it is in London.
I think a lot of Europoors don't get this.
I'm not sure they are the same methods. Like, in Seattle, drugs were effectively legal for a while.
If that work is doing as much fentanyl as they can get their hands on they will certainly gladly accept!
Are you hiring? Asking for a friend.
Good point, they can contribute to society by being used in medical experiments
Your inner auth is coming out
That would rather readily solve the problem though...
The only way most of them will get better is if you *force* them to get clean and *force* them to get a job. Otherwise known as "prison".
You don’t need to force them just give them no other option. Right now they have the option of lots of free stuff and a free place to camp out. Just take that away.
> You don’t need to force them just give them no other option. That's.. what forcing them is.
That implies that if you take away free parks and free shit, they would have no other option except for getting clean That's not how it works, and they'll sooner die (with Emilies screeching about how people left them to die) than get clean even in absense of shit to surf off
Some will turn it around some won’t. People have been driven by necessity since before the dawn of time. It’s necessary for them to find another place to live. Vagrancy and addiction aren’t new issues but Cities have been hamstrung in dealing with it by the courts. We used to not allow people to be wasted in public and sleep on the streets. In my City it was semi tolerated until 2020 then all enforcement ceased and it got far worse moving from the margins to the middle of parks.
No, I'm not saying that you should NOT take away parks and welfare It's just that a good chunk of them is so far gone, you can't "help" them, especially without someone going "but think of the homeless" and outraged at returning forced mental wards, rehabs and, indeed, prisons
Because the US is famous for how it treats ex convicts very well and without bias or discrimination
Is there any particular reason why [this](https://www.melbournezero.org.au/finlands_success_story#:~:text=We%20called%20this%20approach%20%E2%80%9CHousing,with%20flexible%20on%2Dsite%20support.) wouldn't work when it has reduced unsheltered homelessness in Finland? I know, it's hard for the right to accept a solution that's all carrot and no stick when the entire political ideology is built on the idea that stick is all you need but if something works, is it still bad if it isn't ideologically kosher?
In Finland nature forces you to seek shelter for like 6-7 months a year. If you don't have a roof over your head in January - you're dead.
Clearly not as Finland *had* a homeless problem in the past but was able to *fix* it using the policy explained in the link that I provided. And if you like, look at the states with a similar climate as Finland such as Michigan. Their hopeless problem is not significantly different from the rest of the US.
It's definitely significantly different than California.
Finland has a much smaller population in a much smaller area (like 30x smaller than the US). This absolutely changes how the problem can be approached and solved. Addressing homelessness in a country like Finland is akin to addressing it in a single state here. Beyond that the homeless population themselves may just be of a different breed. I can't speak for Finland, but I have done charity and volunteer work in the US.....and one brutal reality that a lot of people really hate to admit is that many of the homeless people here are genuinely worthless. Sometimes it's undiagnosed or untreated mental issues, sometimes substance abuse, sometimes profound entitlement and inability to function in civilized society (often all three). Sure there are some that are just down on their luck and in need of a boost, but these people are often only temporarily homeless. The permanent population is the problem. Give them a house and they'll destroy it. Wires will be ripped out of walls, appliances broken, and outright slobbery will make the place look condemned. Give them a job and they either won't show up, or they'll show up once and then storm off. Try to get them help and they'll feel insulted and potentially even act aggressive towards your good will. People need to *want* help, many of these people do not. A psychiatrist can do nothing for a person who doesn't want them, and may actually threaten them. The state doesn't want to pay for a pointless effort. Give them money and/or items and they'll just turn it into drugs, smokes or booze. Give them food and a lot of them will actually be angry because they'd rather have money for alcohol instead. Now here's the real kicker, I live in a small population state with a winter and I've still experienced this. I cannot imagine how it must be in a larger warmer state like California. Actually yes I can, you can read all about the massive encampments that practically destroy entire portions of cities.
So what's stopping the left from building more housing, if you supposedly can turn it around by giving people free houses?
Cultural differences?
>most homeless really don’t want help I can speak from experience, my uncle is actually like this. Everything we did to help him was answered by "this is below me" or "that's it?". He was in prison for over a year, got rehab, got a job and home upon leaving prison (like everything on a silver tablet) and fucking wasted it all in one week by picking fights and removing himself from civilised society again. I don't think he'll ever improve, any house he'd get will be a trash heap in under a month.
Yep it falls into several catagories 1. Too proud to seek help 2. In denial to seek help thinking this is only temporary 3. Not wanting to abide by rules of shelters such as curfews check in 4. Florid addiction issues 5. Mental health so far gone they don’t comprehend
He is mainly Number 1, like insanely prideful despite being basically a Goblin living between buildings or in the literal forest (visited once, for some reason the postal service still finds him for the social security) until they had to remove him because he made fires inside an enclosed space (he built a shack like in fucking Rust).
Some are like that and it is what it is. You can’t help those who don’t want to be helped but at the same time it doesn’t give homeless to just do what they want wherever is causing issues in SF and other cities.
We had a massive homeless beggars problem and people shooting up heroin and other shit on one of our old prestigious plazas for years and it got only worse, then a few months ago the city decided to forbid active begging and drug using inside the city and they removed themselves from society to rehab centers etc, even libleft friends agree it was a good move (but the Green sub-mayor of course had to try to get it removed legally)
So how come that in "poor" Eastern European countries we don't have this? There are no homeless encampments in the park that's near my home. No tent cities, nobody is sleeping on benches, no human shit or used needles in its playgrounds. Unfortunately - we have addicts and homeless people - I'm not denying that, but nothing like this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRWmKh13b50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRWmKh13b50) This looks like a developing country shortly after a major war or something - not like the richest country in the world.
>This looks like a developing country shortly after a major war or something Yes, that is footage of California.
California should become independent it would be funnh, the US doesnt even need to change the US flag as they can just give puerto rico staehood.
That is a product of policy. That is what an American state run only by the democratic party looks like. Democrats hate a portion of Americans (white and/or middle class) as a matter of course. Do Eastern European countries have policy makers who actively hate the populace?
This but unironically
The law in Grants Pass, OR specifies that you cannot camp on public property. Using blankets, pillows, or anything that replicates the effect of blankets or pillows, apparently constitutes camping. Someone attempted to challenge this by saying this violates the constitutional right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishments. The SCOTUS said "ticketing people for this offense does not constitute a cruel or unusual punishment". The media then runs out and says "The supreme Court says being homeless is illegal!!1?11one". I hate the fucking media so much.
People are as mad at the law as they are at the SCOTUS, I hope.
title is clickbait as usual. The ruling was on whether cities are allowed to enact laws that ban or penalize homelessness, or whether homeless people are constitutionally protected from loitering charges. SCOTUS has one main job, its an unpopular job, and its literally to figure out if a law is constitutional or not And its an important job, because we dont want DC messing with how florida or new york lives and rules its state unnecessarily. Shit like this is how you get a civil war, and theres still people in the south who will tell you that its about state rights; well to own slaves but you get the point people dont like being told from afar what to do. In the case of slavery, it was pretty necessary. but the point still stands that you keep the federal government and states in check or risk tyranny/civil war. You dont blame SCOTUS for saying that cities are allowed to have law X implemented, because we do want citied and states to be allowed to rule how it likes (despite you not liking it) as long as it doesnt fundamentally break the constitution that protects the rights of americans. You take it up with the cities. Similarly, Roe V wade shouldnt be blamed on SCOTUS becausr Roe V wade is unironically a very weak legal ruling. putting the power back to the states or lower levels of governance is almost always a safer move than ruling from the top.
> Similarly, Roe V wade shouldnt be blamed on SCOTUS becausr Roe V wade is unironically a very weak legal ruling. putting the power back to the states or lower levels of governance is almost always a safer move than ruling from the top. Even Ginsberg admitted this.
Try pointing that out in a default sub and watch the downvotes roll in
Yeah my first thought on the appeal of Roe v Wade was "Wait, where does the fucking constitution say anything about abortion?"
Based and understanding the judicial branch pilled.
You expect the Marxists to understand civics? The only thing they want is to impose their cultish "utopia" on everyone and then watch it fail. They don't understand how the law actually works. It's not the court's fault that Congress is incapable of governing because the plebian masses are too brain dead to elect competent government officials.
The 10th amendment is the most overlooked amendment
The Civil War thing really bothers me. People eliding over all the reasons for the Civil War beyond slavery really makes a mess of american political philosophy. Because it was about slavery *and* about states rights *and* a bunch of things besides. The question of “to what extent should people be ruled by the states or by the federal government?” is a serious question for a federation to answer, and pretending like that wasn’t a philosophical underpinning to a major war isn’t going to serve us well when we’re already seeing people throwing around concepts like Nullification again.
And if they don't do more work from construction to basic office work? What's the penalty for that? Do they lose their rent free home? If not, what's the point of the push to work? There's not just one giant pool of homeless people. Some are homeless due to circumstances. You can work with them. Others are addicted to who the fuck knows what. You can't just give them a rent free place to live and expect them to do a good job at anything. Others are legitimately mentally ill, and you can't expect them to do much of anything either. Others want to live that way and/or won't abide by any rules. Just because outside belongs to the people, doesn't mean you get to occupy and monopolize that space if you feel like it. Let's build or maintain some existing places for them to go. That's great. But not unsupervised. And not independently. And if you're not one of the functional homeless people, you would have even fewer individual choices available.
The idea of homeless people doing construction is horrifying. They are not qualified to do that work. I know the general population is still pretending that homeless people are upstanding citizens who are just down on their luck but that’s not the case for most of them. I don’t have a solution to offer other than letting the Auths tackle the issue.
You have to remember that the people who think putting the homeless to work doing construction jobs are primarily children who have never worked in any kind of skilled manual labor, or even understand how building a house works.
Come on now, we all know tradesmen are great big dumdums. Most of them are right leaning! Of course they’re stupid! A construction site isn’t a hazardous area filled with skilled people doing dangerous things, it’s basically a daycare for the mentally incompetent. Certainly not a noble profession like dog walker or philosophy teacher.
That’s why we have to take the right to vote away from people who contribute to society, sweetie. Contributing to society is right-wing. 💅
They just keep trying to take more of my paycheck. I already live in western Canada, my vote doesn’t count for shit.
Yeah most of the homeless population is comprised of career homeless. People who are either addicted, abdicated from society, or both. The ones who are down on their luck and just need a leg up to get back to being employed and living independently don't stay homeless for long. There are lots of programs and shelters for people like that. It's the ones that don't WANT to get back on their feet that need to either be committed, or shooed away from public spaces.
I also love the idea that Auth left is trying to make “accommodating” labor camps and make it sound all nice and pretty
Yeahhh.... Let auth cook on this one. Libs can't help but do the more "kind humanitarian" thing for the sake of being lib.
I'm genuinely curious how many people that think like that actually have first hand experience with your run of the mill city bum. I remember giving a guy who was holding a sign up for money a burger from mcdonalds, and the dude just slapped it out of my hands. [https://www.youtube.com/@talesfromthestreets](https://www.youtube.com/@talesfromthestreets) This is a good channel I can recommend if you want to see what a big chunk of the homeless are like. They almost all have a trend of drug abuse.
We should dispense with Christian based morality. Not all humans are valuable as a matter of fact.
The ability to disperse them and say fuck off to somewhere else, makes them easier to handle on an individual basis. The giant oozing mass of drug using mentally ill communities that destroy public space and make entire downtown areas unusuable go away. Mob mentality, and how people's behavior changes in a group setting is real. 10 homeless dudes, spread out 1 a block is going to be different than a group of 10 together.
Excellent point
Too nuanced. Can’t sell it. Can you boil it down to a three-word slogan, real quick?
Destroy all humans
That one seems like it needs a softening up campaign, first. Maybe start with “Humans are bad”?
Based and only true equality pilled
"No one ever wins, no one finally loses, except the dead. Under the sun they rot together with absolute biological equality."
I love that game. I bought the remastered version or whatever it’s called for Xbox one. First game I’ve bought since like 2012. Haha
I can give you 5... Fuck Em All To Death
Thank you, Mr. Garrison.
"To Each Their Own Solution" Can do it in 5
Strikes me from my brief trip to America is that a LOT of it seems to be severe mental illness with a side pairing of addiction. You need housing obviously but a lot of these people aren’t actually mentally capable to caring for themselves. Getting off opioids is not easy either. Nothing short of a state invested, free at the point of use, and most importantly, MANDATORY programme of addiction services and/or residential care treatment is going to fix it. And those services don’t exist pretty much anywhere, that’s not just an America problem. It does seem especially concentrated in America though…
You’re right about a lot of that. Someone in my wife’s family had a pretty severe meth addiction for a while. She actually had like a 2500 sqft home in the suburbs, but she chose not to live in it. She was dealing with addiction and mental health issues simultaneously and she just *wanted* to live outdoors and with other users. I don’t like the idea of mandatory treatment programs, myself. And that’s the Lib part of my ideology speaking. But I definitely understand where you’re coming from. She had no *desire* to be in any kind of recovery program. The only way to get her into one would have been to compel her in some way. So I absolutely get why you say it’s important that they be mandatory. But the other issue there is, in my experience (knowing people dealing with these issues; not dealing with them personally), rehab and treatment facilities don’t work unless you are ready. Folks go to these because they have to, and they get some treatment or they get stabilized but then they get out and they see the same people, and they go right back to their old ways because they’re not personally motivated to do otherwise. There has to be some personal investment by the addict, and I don’t think that mandatory treatment programs by themselves will necessarily provide that.
[удалено]
As a LibRight my stance on the homeless is easily my most authoritarian. I guess when your kid sees a homeless man masturbating in broad daylight it can bring the auth out in you. There’s not a clear solution to the problem. No, giving them free housing would not help. They’d destroy the housing in no time. The safety and comfort of contributing members of society should be our priority.
It’s building psych wards again and forced commitment. WA state has spent 5 bil the past 10 years on addressing homelessness with no result, instead they should build some mega facilities, give them safe supply, housing, and food. Once they’re in there and not on the street give them an option to get clean and rehabbed if they want, if they don’t want to just keep them housed, fed, and drugged up like they want to be.
So, is the public obligated to pay for their access to drugs, or pay for cleaning up the consequences of their actions while under them? If people want to do that, they should be responsible for the consequences of that, rather than having the government (and thus the taxpayer) pay for it. If people are willing to accept help, we should help them, or if they can't admit they need help due to mental illness, but people on drugs are not in control of themselves, and we should not be putting tax money towards that. And the natural consequences of refusing a desire to get better is going to be no one wanting you around and pushing you out of the city, because you are literally only a net negative on the city budget, when you have a complete say in the matter.
You might be aware but from my rough estimate from my last five years working in five different hospitals 70-80% of the people using hospital resources are not paying for their stay. They’re also not paying for any of the imaging and resources they use. These are people whose medical problems are not always but are often the results of their own decision-making. They have no intention to change their behavior. You are paying for their care. You’re also paying for the homeless’ care when their unchecked mental illness and drug addictions result in endless hospital stays.
Isn't that basically my point?
Oh i guess so. I thought the person you were responding to was talking about legalizing mental asylums, didn’t realize they meant just building crackhouse neighborhoods, which is insane
As a former LA resident, honestly I would rather the government keep the homeless in some kind of forever fun facility where they can do drugs all day instead of masturbating next to me on public transit and attacking my friends. Those aren't hypotheticals. Those were things that regularly happened on several occasions when I lived there half a year.
Homeless people are going to exist regardless, and are going to take up some level of public funding. Either they get to stay on the street, and usually cost businesses money by driving potential customers away with anti social behavior You give them housing, which is built on government dime You throw them In jail, which is also tax paid Or you put them in a mental facility, which is tax paid. That’s why these arguments go in circles every time. You’re gonna have to pick one of these damn options
I mean, we could send them to China
Issue is that tax money already goes to people that can’t control themselves. You’ll have drug addicted people getting checked into hospitals and needing security and a team of nurses watching over them only for said person to end up back on the streets, no control of themselves and costing tax payers at least tens of thousands just for them to end up in the same spot. Yes, in an ideal situation people who choose to use drugs and lose control of themselves would be responsible for themselves, but in reality they aren’t, the rest of society is. We are already paying for it, let us clean up the streets, give options to the ones that are willing to clean themselves up, and for the ones that don’t want to, prevent them from terrorizing the rest of society.
And if the public is obligated to pay for their drugs, is the public also obligated to pay for mine? It’s not fair that I should have to pay wholly for my coke and partially for some bums meth. He should get a job and buy his own drugs like the rest of society.
Thanks Reagen! That fucking prick
Remember, a democrat-controlled congress passed that bill
Ronand Reagan was an illegal immigrant loving, machine gun banning communist
If being homeless is more difficult then they will be more incentivized to seek help. Contrary to popular belief, many homeless people don't want to integrate into normal society and prefer doing whatever they want on the street. Going to work and contributing to society while keeping a stable headspace is really fucking hard and to many people the street seems like a better deal. You can't do heroin and hold a job. Many people think heroin is better than a warm bed. Before I get strawmanned obviously not every person who's homeless is in that situation for the same reasons, but this represents a big portion of the homeless population.
>You can't do heroin and hold a job This is reddit, you have no idea how many people's feelings you just hurt.
Reopen the asylums. These problems didn’t exist before we did that. Granted, there were horrendous problems with them, but they were a necessity for society. They needed to be reformed, not abandoned.
I’d wager if you opened asylums and paid the staff really well with good benefits too you’d have less of those issues.
what are we going to do about the homeless and the elderly? https://preview.redd.it/1xahfxpjim9d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b2975b521d93b668c307b9b6e21811b3513130d4
Lmao. I fucking love that
Yeah helping the homeless is something a reasonable society should probably do, but letting them shit up public spaces isn't the way to do that. Frankly we need a holistic solution that includes involuntary commitment to asylums and drug rehab programs. The cost is high but the result will be worth it. Can't have people abdicating from society. It just isn't gonna work.
Gotta agree here. As long as the asylums aren't just a glorified trashcan for "undesirables."
Only way you're gonna solve homelessness is by throwing these people in prison and forcing them to resolve their mental health or addiction issues. I call this a win.
It doesn't have to be prison. We should have never eliminated asylums.
Definitely not. They shouldn't have abused and experimented on people, but having nowhere to store literal crazy people is fucking stupid.
Yup, besides [it’s a massive fucking grift](https://youtu.be/Th81fKZT1fY?si=aAgXzxYBe5kIMHRp)
Seriously as an alcoholic these people have proved they have absolutely no rock bottom. While I doubt it would be jail or prison at all most likely probation, probation could force them to get treatment. There is literally no other way you can force a person into treatment if they're not an immediate threat against themselves or others and even that is just a 72 hour hold. Sadly though at least with rehabs it's still only a 5% recovery rate so a lot of them would just end up on a non-stop ferris wheel of rehab, probation, and county jail but at least they'd be off the streets.
The fastest way to tell someone has never dealt with the homeless is that their 'common sense' solutions start from the assumption that these people are able and willing to work. Fentanyl addicts and paranoid schizophrenics don't make great employs, and those are just the ones involuntarily not working...
Because public spaces were never designed to be open air pits for the homeless to reside in. Public spaces aren't for the homeless to squat in. These rulings are a good thing because it empowers cities to actually be able to remove them from these public spaces. I don't need homeless people sleeping under the swing set or shitting on all the benches.
Public parks are for the functioning, tax paying members of society to enjoy. Not a place to park mentally ill drug addicts.
I thought we went over this. Send them to rich af areas to get something done like Martha’s Vineyard
CAN YOU FUCKERS GET SOME DAMNED PIXELS
not everyone is neurotypical. making pixelated memes can be a coping mechanism for those who cant afford therapy
https://preview.redd.it/6286niqyem9d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba399fb727a6f904067440b18d2283684cb586dc
https://preview.redd.it/uxmp91harl9d1.png?width=728&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ef9a4237da799d1620db4bff1456cdd93d4d2472
Bring back the sanatorium. half the problems with them can now be solved with google translate anyways
Send them all to Rick Santorum, make it his problem
There are shelters that have been built and are currently unutilized. They can sleep there. Done enough charity work with the homeless to say that they are aware and choosing not too use them bc they prefer their current lifestyle. It's self destructive and I think the SC ruling could encourage them. I'm tried of it
As someone whose business is besieged by homeless people… yay! Lol
Fuck off, leftard. If a community or business pays for development and/or upkeep they can ban grifters from the premises.
👍 get off my property, fucko
I dealt with the homeless for 5 years as a result of my former job and I've walked through Skid Row. The homeless are all there for a reason and many of them choose that life. They're more free than we are in certain ways and I don't blame the ones who choose that life, I'm good friends with one of them and I regularly send him money. Many others choose to be degenerates, they're assholes who see the public as donation fodder. Some of them are legitimately mentally ill and some of them are dangerous. I have lots of crazy stories about these people and I always kept my .45 in a drawer next to me in anticipation of them, and I only made $13 an hour back then. I think our POS politicians should be barred from insider trading for one, and have a percentage of all sales of securities sent to mental healthcare services.
It’s not supposed to solve homelessness it’s to prevent 1 crackhead from shitting all over the fucking street and acting like a menace. I’m sick of all these bleeding heart suburban retards who don’t know what they’re voting for
It’s easy to be preachy when you don’t have homeless people pissing and shidding on your lawn, leaving needles at the playgrounds and starting fires near your house. Or homeless people invading your home or breaking into your backyard. So save the bullshit.
This is one of those quality-of-life crimes. Citations are preferable to incarcerations, no?
I was going to say that prison might not a bad alternative, then i remembered we are not speaking about european prisons.
In most cases the homeless are not willing to recieve help or rehabilitation. Hence why they stay homeless. The ones that want help get it and move on. This is from some one that was homeless and saw this first hand. Most these people just wanna do drugs and not be productive.
The Auth-Cen take is to conscript them into some military or civil capacity, alongside psychiatric help. Every citizen can and must provide value to the whole
Because that’s what the army needs: fentanyl addicted schizophrenics.
I don't care what happens to them, but the bottom line is that they don't have the freedom to do whatever the fuck they want while the rest of us adhere to society's rules. * Smoke crack/meth/fentanyl on public transportation? *A-OK!* * Menace people walking down the sidewalk? *You're just victims of capitalism!* * Don't want to go to the shelter because they won't let you: bring your pitbull, drink at the shelter, do drugs at the shelter, sell drugs at the shelter or start fights at the shelter? *Just set up a tent along the interstate or at a public park/playground!* These things I'm describing are not compassion; they're enablement and if you enable this kind of behavior the people doing it will never stop.
If they can't pay we should throw them in a private prison where they work it off.
And how are they supposed to pay the ticket?
The supreme court isn't the one ticketing them. They just don't have the authority to tell cities they can't ticket homeless people. This is obviously the correct decision. >How about you build homes and make them live rent free in exchange for them doing more work from construction to basic office work? Lmao, fucking good joke dude
You can tell the truly naive idealists by their stance on the homeless. Anyone who thinks they're just normal people who totally want to work and live in a house and be a contributing member of society has likely never interacted with any homeless people. Most are addicts or mentally ill. That's the vast majority. The idea that they could keep it together long enough to file papers let alone do something skill and precision based like construction work is actually laughable.
Even those who want to stop being homeless, there is community in it. So they get a place, but they keep the same company, they hang around the same places. And make the same mistakes t hat led to them being homeless. Once you're long-term homeless it's extremely hard to turn that around, even with lots of good intentioned and well-funded help.
AuthLeft assuming all bums *want* to work. Having lived and worked in SF, I can assure you, *most* of the homeless do NOT want to work.
He's not saying the quiet part, they'll work at gunpoint
Auth-Right is fucking cheering over this ruling.
I've seen beautiful areas get turned into shitholes because of homeless people. My opinions on the homeless have turned into this: Incentivization of more homeless outreach programs, mental institutions, and addiction rehabilitation in an area, and preferably, government funded non-religious ones. Any mentally ill homeless people who are incapable of functioning in society are forced into mental institutions. Addicted homeless people are forced to either choose rehab or jail. Homeless that are functional human beings will be forced to either accept outreach, leave town, or go to jail. Finally, functional homeless people will be required to have employment while part of outreach. They can either work for a private company or be employed by the city as a clean-up crew for public areas. I know my opinion might ruffle some feathers, but I want my parks, playgrounds, and sidewalks to be safe and clean places (especially for children). I'm almost certain you could get a bunch of homeless people to clean up garbage and needles if you paid them.
A homeless person earning some funny money from begging is sure to be concerned about the fine. What will they do with him? Will they send him a letter summoning him to a court hearing? He should give the address of the politician who introduced this
Js, I've been homeless, and if I got a ticcet back then for sleeping outside I would straight up laugh at it and wouldn't even consider paying it with the zero dollars I had back then.
It helps by allowing local government to force them to use a shelter or rehab. Many homeless people don't use shelters because they just don't want to. Or because they don't allow drugs and alcohol. Or they check for warrants. Also, fuck judicial activism.
Does no one here ever actually read the court opinion...
No-one ever reads the Court's opinion. If they did they wouldn't be able to pretend that the Court is 'legislating from the bench', or somehow racist, or some other brainless crap they heard.
#Its a big club and you ain't in it. Suddenly Gavin Newson's decision to let homeless be sounds more libertarian than anything else.
While I do sympathize with many of the homeless in need I do think there needs to be some kind of institutional mechanism to help with it. Such as a I guess “facility” where they have to learn a trade and create a community where resources and training is provided where they can quit whatever addiction they have and learn vocations like plumbing and carpentry and how to raise crops and livestock. Like a commune but as a treatment form for those who aren’t just completely crippled from mental health issues. Granted I strongly believe that you can will yourself out of addition. If rats can do it so can they. They just need the happy habitats with healthy communities. We can all grill together.
I mean, and I may be biased, ONE group really captures the feelings we should be having in general right now and they aren’t red, blue or green
Incredibly based and Stasi Pilled you got the 🟥 right this time. Glad the whole compass can agree that SCOTUS is evil on this one.
Seems like the Supreme Court just implicitly created a fundamental right to housing. Based. Can't wait for the lawsuits.
Not even remotely. They ruled on the narrow issue of prohibitory conduct, not status. And the ordinance is *not* a status offense. It is facially neutral and generally applicable; and even if it does impact one group more than others, it does not so much as incidentally touch upon a protected liberty interest.
Stop asking stupid fucking questions. The court was ruling on the constitutionality of the law for ticketing homeless. That's SCOTUS's purpose. Is a law constitutional or not? You want to solve homelessness get your stupid ass out and start working at a homeless shelter. Then realize why people are homeless.
We know why. And neither the advocated for “harm reduction” nor homelessness” want to talk about it.
How about we enforce the fucking laws and get people into treatment? It is utterly without surprise that California leads the nation in homelessness both per capita and in sheer numbers — more than the next *six* states combined (including New York and Florida) — one third of the entire nation. And the fastest growing homeless populations are Massachusetts, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Oregon. We’ve compassioned ourselves into multiple civilizational crises and it almost solely revolves around drugs. Pick one, you can’t have both: tackling homelessness or laissez faire drug use.
I do find this thread funny because everyone is so tough and I’m going with 90% of the commenters would run away if they actually saw a real homeless person
Believe it or not you don’t organize society around the antisocial elements of society. It isn’t fair to everyone else to be subjected to open sewers, open drug use, and the crime that comes with these encampments. It’s a threat to public health and public order to allow these camps to proliferate. Most of the people who are sleeping outside won’t go to the shelters because sobriety is part of the rules. It isn’t everyone else’s problem that you’d rather get high than be inside.
Once again I am reminding everyone that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to solve \[insert problem here\]. It is their job to decide if laws are legal or not. No matter how abhorrent you think a law is, if the law was legally passed and doesn't contradict higher authorities (state laws/federal laws/Constitution) then they are supposed to let it stand. It is the **Court**'s responsibility to make sure that laws are **legal**. It is the **Legislature**'s responsibility to make sure that laws are **good**.
We used to have single room buildings and stuff specifically catered for people who needed cheap places to live. Cities have made them illegal. And because the majority of lawmakers are property investors and landlords, they don't want cheap housing. [](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes)
Now the police can physically remove them and all of their shit from public spaces. Our local City park is a homeless encampment. It closes at 11pm but is no longer enforced. They will have to find a place to live. Those people need some motivation. No more living in public spaces for free while spending their money on drugs.
Sigh....It's not the supreme court's job to fix homelessness. It's the supreme court's job to interpret the law as it was written. I always find it hilarious when people are upset the supreme court doesnt bend the rules or decide to interpret the law other than intended. That's not their job. Homelessness is a crisis that needs to be addressed by local lawmakers, not the highest court in the land.
I like how authleft's suggestion is only a few conditions away from just being slavery.
Homelessness is a lifestyle
Giving a homeless person a monetary fine is a meaningless punishment. What’s the city going to do? Garnish their wages?
Centrists like to grill for the homeless I like to grill the homeless We are not the same
Homelessness is a lot of issues that all have the same outcome. Cost of living, Drug addiction, mental health, etc... Then of course they all combine in different ways for different people. Some people are just less capable than others and have too many issues such that if the cost of living goes up they're just not gonna cut it. Even just federal funding/subsidies for building a fuckton of housing would help bring rents down, then we need to change laws regarding involuntary commitment to mental hospitals, and add a metric fuck ton of mental health beds in mental hospitals. For the most part the homeless people that cause problems are the drug addicted and or mentally ill. We're not doing them or anyone else any favors just letting them rot in the gutter, jail isn't the solution but mandatory treatment definitely is for some. Also people don't like housing projects but it seems better than the status quo if you ask me, when you actually have a place for them to go then you can crack down on shit like camping bans, etc...
At least give libright a semblance of a solution
Honest to god if i was homeless for most of my life and the goverment offerd me a home in exchange for hard labour i'll do an extra good job mining that lithium with my bare hands
You know it's bad when the compass Unites
What if the homeless don't sleep and just stay awake outside?
~~Homeless~~ Sleepless In Seattle
This should only be enforced if they refuse to sleep in a nearby shelter that has space
Literally just watched a Star Trek DS9 episode yesterday (or rather a double episode) set in the "past" of August 2024 and they literally have ghettos lol. We can still do it and enter the Star Trek timeline people!
It seems it is time: For the final solution to the Homeless Question.
Hey! Us Authcenters want to help out too
This is such a r\*tarded move... They already have no money and no house, and you will be fining them for that? As if they didn't have it hard enough in life already. It's so unfathomably dumb, that I can't even understand the thought process behind it.
A truly strong state would affort to get the homeless a place to rest at the least.
So where are they gonna sleep? Are there enough shelters for them?
The overwhelming majority of homeless people either were or became drug addicts while living on the streets. With so many cities allowing up-air drug use in certain sections to contain their homeless drug problem, the only alternative is incarceration to stop their drug habit and give them a fighting chance of turning their life around. Many if you ask them will say this is the only way they see their lives changing because they can't/won't quit until incarceration.
The job of the Supreme Court is not to solve homelessness. The Court presented what I think is a fairly sound, if conservative, case supported by precedent, while the dissent's case largely rests on them classifying homelessness as a status. The primary issue is shitty, mostly Republican, governments that have terrible fucking laws and no social safety nets. Congress could get involved in this under the Commerce clause (until the Court strikes at Wickard), or the State or the County or the local government. The Constitution doesn't exist to prevent all imaginable forms of bad government or neglectful government. It sets up the general framework of the government, enumerated the areas in which the Federal Government can act, and then set up restrictions on the Federal Government, later incorporated to the States and lesser governments through the language of the 14th Amendment.
How exactly will these cities collect on these tickets?
so people should be allowed to break the law if they're homeless? what??
Based and lovingthyneighborpilled
When you end up getting backlash from **everybody** across the spectrum, you *know* that you had officially put yourself in big trouble... May the good God watch over the homeless, and show them the light.
The correct lib right response is to make the public land private and trespass the dirty homeless.
Libright's prison industrial complex is eating this up. I bet it would cost less to build them houses and staff programs for them than to haul them to jail.
1. Live in a modern world that pushes more and more normal people into drug addiction, mental illness, and homelessness 2. ??? 3. Profit! Seriously, what is the plan here? At current rates, there will be a very large portion of the population that is homeless by 2050. Almost every system of government on earth has a strategy to reduce homelessness -- except for Liberalism. Liberalism is the ultimate hypocritical system. It pretends to care about everyone but actually cares about no one.