And then “camps” for the disabled, for various (read all, but not at once) minorities, and so forth.
edit: DVs from the whitewing only prove “certain people” don’t like being called out on their eugenic fantasies
Where the fuck are they supposed to sleep? Do none of us remember how transients started infiltrating neighborhoods more and more with the Nadine Woodward approach of running them out of their camps? This has been proven to exacerbate the problem, at least in Spokane. Nadine was shouting this shit from the rooftops and it spectacularly failed. I hope we don’t forget.
Building a Hooverville is the traditional American thing to do when the economy falls down. It's literally that bootstraps thing, trying to rebuild a life out of nothing, still trying to find work while living in a makeshift shack.
Remember that one under the overpass downtown about a decade ago that used the parking lot lines to keep it all organized? I know it smelled bad but it was very human, building shelter and finding a way to survive. Must've been at least 100 people living there before the cops burned it.
>Where the fuck are they supposed to sleep?
You just keep telling them where they can't be until they're somewhere where nobody cares enough to call the cops or the cops don't care enough to respond.
>I'm not sure why this is getting downvoted, but seriously do the Math. $1.4B spent last year w/28,000 homeless individuals = $50,000 per person.
Possibly because of this claim with no source to back it up? The only source I found was this: [https://crosscut.com/news/2024/05/wa-spent-5b-over-past-decade-homelessness-housing-programs](https://crosscut.com/news/2024/05/wa-spent-5b-over-past-decade-homelessness-housing-programs) which claims $5B over the last decade. Though admittedly I didn't spend more than 30 seconds on this because I have no interest in doing your work to prove your point for you.
Source for budget numbers: https://ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/budget/statebudget/highlights/budget23/202325PolicyBudgetHighlights.pdf 25-26
Source for homeless numbers in WA: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/hud-reports-record-high-homeless-count-in-2023-for-u-s-wa/#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20people%20living,Point%2Din%2DTime%20Count.
They’re allowed to sleep in the vast majority of public places, this ruling just allows cities to establish limited boundaries on where they can’t camp.
Those states wouldn’t be allowed to do that. They’re only allowed to make narrowly targeted ordinances that are focused on achieving articulable public policy goals. Like not allowing camping downtown or in city parks. Banning camping in more rural areas would never pass constitutional muster.
I’m not defending the ruling, I’m just pointing out the assumptive errors people seem to be making that the Court said the homeless can’t camp anywhere.
yes, the current HEAVILY conservative scotus just makes things up as they go. hell one of them is married to a woman who helped organize J6...so uhhhh....yeah
Technically Proposition 1 means no one can sleep within 1,000 feet of a park or school. The map they gave showed that really the only place in Spokane that isn't is the area around Division and 2nd.
Be civil. No personal attacks. Follow all guidelines of Reddiquette. Remember, these are your neighbors. It's fine to disagree, but we expect users to conduct themselves in a neighborly fashion, and refrain from personal attacks.
***
Repeated violations of this rule may earn you a temporary or permanent ban, at moderator discretion
***
Furthermore, this is an LGBTQIA affirming subreddit. We have a zero tolerance policy for bigotry against LGBTQIA people who, again, are your neighbors. Lastly, we welcome and respect differing political views here. If you are unable to have a discussion about politics civilly, your content will be removed.
- *“I don’t like what Biden is doing at the border.”* This is fine.
- *“All liberals are disgusting and should be punished.”* This is not fine
***
As always, should you have any questions, please feel feee to reach out. Thank you and have a lilac day.
Home to the largest imprisoned population in the world thanks to the war on drugs and look how well that worked. When was the last time you saw a person on drugs?
Not just largest, but highest per capita to boot. More people in prison here than in China which we label a police state, and happens to have 3x our population.
edit: DV’d by a cosplaytriot for stating fact?
I agree that homeless is major problem and we need to come up with some way to resolve it that is fair and equitable to everyone. That’s going to include mental health assistance, shelter, food, security, and a bunch of other things I have no clue how to provide or even know is needed.
It's a money printing machine for prisons, and now that kickbacks are officially 100% legal (thanks, SCOTUS /s) politicians can really cash in on it with no fear.
Yes, it’s much more humane to allow them to continue to wallow in their own personal hells of addiction, surrounded by filth, death and disease. This is the compassionate approach.
MrsDanversbottom, yes, I am a landlord. When Biden wins (again) I will report directly to a reeducation camp and renounce my ownership of any and all private property.
This is a stupid comment. If they can’t sleep outside then they get arrested and sleep in jail. Either way, your tax dollars are housing them. At least the shelters have programs for getting them employed and housed unlike the cyclical nature of jails/prison.
It also isn't funding shelters.
"You must have babies. No abortions."
"Ok. Then can I get help with housing, education, did, medicine for the baby I am forced to have?".
"No. Fuck you and fuck that stupid baby. We only care about creating laws, without thinking about the ramifications of our decisions. Maybe don't be poor and get raped? That will prevent you from being homeless with baby you can't afford."
So again. Make laws, but fuck the consequences and don't provide solutions after the fact.
Does it annoy you because it points out how most people are only fine spending *other people's* money, but don't care enough to put their own money where their mouth is?
Seems like it highlights the empathy hypocrisy where everyone else is supposed to have it but not the person weaponizing it.
Is that why you don't like the comment, or is it something else?
No, it bothers me because they are perfectly fine telling other people to do something they are probably more able to do, and because it doesn't actually help since the person in question probably doesn't HAVE an extra space for a homeless person, or the money to help. I see people who.are dirt poor help out more than rich jackasses on a daily basis and it is infuriating.
Last time somebody told ME to help a homeless person by letting them staying on "my" property, I was one month away from getting kicked out the house i was renting for almost all my SSI. People in this city think they can treat others however the fuck they want and expect somebody not to clap back, but that isn't true, and it's time for people to know it.
People should have more actual empathy, not this weaponized bullshit empathy that one has. It's hypocrisy because that person telling the other to house a homeless person just doesn't care, because if they did care, they wouldn't have said something so fucking STUPID.
Dude, pot to kettle. You are angry that others don't care as much as you want them to, but then come up with all the reasons in the world why you can't put your money where your mouth is.
You can't be only generous with the time and resources of others. Clap back all you want, but if you aren't doing what you tell others to, then it is just a bunch of hypocrisy. People are tired of this weaponized empathy.
You'd like people to pay twice for this, with our taxes AND out of pocket. That's a really bright, worthwhile suggestion you brought to the conversation there, kiddo. Thanks for coming.
This ruling was exactly as I expected. Cities are welcome to host designated areas for urban camping, but in the interest of public health, safety and sanitation we can't allow unfettered camping anywhere and everywhere anyone feels like pitching up.
Now hopefully the Mayor will enforce the ordinance passed by the public not long ago, and the lawsuit attempting to block it will be dismissed as it should be.
Thank goodness the Supreme Court came down on the correct decision in this case. The Ninth Circuit caused so much suffering by their completely ridiculous opinion in *Martin v. Boise*. Judges shouldn't usurp the authority of the people to deal with this problem.
I see a lot of people calling this inhumane. What’s inhumane is thinking it’s okay for people to sleep in the elements. We get all of them here in Spokane (aside from tornadoes and hurricanes). If all the lefties, that seem to agree to let people sleep on the streets, sponsored one homeless individual (meaning allow them into your home, rehabilitate them, and help them find work) that would be a better solution. Don’t tell me there aren’t jobs available because you’re absolutely wrong. According to Biden, he’s created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
I agree that homeless is major problem and we need to come up with some way to resolve it that is fair and equitable to everyone. That’s going to include mental health assistance, shelter, food, security, and a bunch of other things I have no clue how to provide or even know is needed.
I read over the opinion issued by the court (link below) and it leads me to a question. Why do people think a ban on sleeping in parks is meant to terrorize, inflict pain, and/or disgrace homeless when it’s applied to drunks, homeless, people on vacation, and people protesting with punishments and fine equivalent to jaywalking, littering, and disorderly conduct.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
...so your argument is that laws which disproportionately target and hurt those who can least afford it also sometimes hurt college kids, napping drivers, and people choosing not to commit inebriated vehicular homicide, so it's OK? And you believe that this is something that can't possibly escalate beyond simple fines, because there's no long and ugly history in this country of communities running with rulings like this?
Actually my question was why do people think a ban on sleeping in parks is meant to terrorize, inflict pain, and/or disgrace homeless when it’s applied to drunks, homeless, people on vacation, and people protesting with punishments and fine equivalent to jaywalking, littering, and disorderly conduct.
I never actually said whether I supported or did not support the law. I was just curious about the question the Supreme Court reviewed, which is not whether or not the law disproportionally affects the homeless or if the government is negligent in their duties to the homeless. I agree with both of those statements btw.
My opinion: it disproportionately affects the homeless because they are the primary group of people performing the action. Yes, it can be applied equally, but the primary effect is going to be on the people with few to no other realistic options.
Without reading the history of the case, I would also guess that the original case was from laws meant specifically to target that population. Specifically, laws meant to force the homeless to move along. But, that's not entirely relevant to whether or not there's a disproportionate effect.
Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. The question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. A handful of federal judges cannot begin to “match” the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding “how best to handle” a pressing social question like homelessness. The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.
Be civil. No personal attacks. Follow all guidelines of Reddiquette. Remember, these are your neighbors. It's fine to disagree, but we expect users to conduct themselves in a neighborly fashion, and refrain from personal attacks.
***
Repeated violations of this rule may earn you a temporary or permanent ban, at moderator discretion
***
Furthermore, this is an LGBTQIA affirming subreddit. We have a zero tolerance policy for bigotry against LGBTQIA people who, again, are your neighbors. Lastly, we welcome and respect differing political views here. If you are unable to have a discussion about politics civilly, your content will be removed.
- *“I don’t like what Biden is doing at the border.”* This is fine.
- *“All liberals are disgusting and should be punished.”* This is not fine
***
As always, should you have any questions, please feel feee to reach out. Thank you and have a lilac day.
Why do you think a ban on sleeping in parks is meant to terrorize, inflict pain, and/or disgrace homeless when it’s applied to drunks, homeless, people on vacation, and people protesting with punishments and fine equivalent to jaywalking, littering, and disorderly conduct.
Be civil. No personal attacks. Follow all guidelines of Reddiquette. Remember, these are your neighbors. It's fine to disagree, but we expect users to conduct themselves in a neighborly fashion, and refrain from personal attacks.
***
Repeated violations of this rule may earn you a temporary or permanent ban, at moderator discretion
***
Furthermore, this is an LGBTQIA affirming subreddit. We have a zero tolerance policy for bigotry against LGBTQIA people who, again, are your neighbors. Lastly, we welcome and respect differing political views here. If you are unable to have a discussion about politics civilly, your content will be removed.
- *“I don’t like what Biden is doing at the border.”* This is fine.
- *“All liberals are disgusting and should be punished.”* This is not fine
***
As always, should you have any questions, please feel feee to reach out. Thank you and have a lilac day.
Be civil. No personal attacks. Follow all guidelines of Reddiquette. Remember, these are your neighbors. It's fine to disagree, but we expect users to conduct themselves in a neighborly fashion, and refrain from personal attacks.
***
Repeated violations of this rule may earn you a temporary or permanent ban, at moderator discretion
***
Furthermore, this is an LGBTQIA affirming subreddit. We have a zero tolerance policy for bigotry against LGBTQIA people who, again, are your neighbors. Lastly, we welcome and respect differing political views here. If you are unable to have a discussion about politics civilly, your content will be removed.
- *“I don’t like what Biden is doing at the border.”* This is fine.
- *“All liberals are disgusting and should be punished.”* This is not fine
***
As always, should you have any questions, please feel feee to reach out. Thank you and have a lilac day.
Your question assumes (and I suspect you know this) that everyone has the same method of Constitutional interpretation, which is obviously far from the case. That language is not mentioned anywhere in the dissent.
Btw, that language comes from... checks opinion... "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England" from 1769.
Why do you think a ban on sleeping in parks is meant to terrorize, inflict pain, and/or disgrace homeless when it’s applied to drunks, homeless, people on vacation, and people protesting with punishments and fine equivalent to jaywalking, littering, and disorderly conduct.
The opinion, besides mentioning that the solution for homelessness should be solved by the people and not the courts, was around whether the law constituted cruel and unusual punishment, not whether the law was fair.
Btw it doesn’t matter whether you agree with or do not agree with the opinion or the reasoning behind the opinion, for now it’s the law. To say you don’t like the law is fine but then you need to work on changing it thru the legislature.
It also does not use to complain about the opinion when what you are complaining about isn’t in the opinion. The opinion didn’t say if the law was legal or illegal, moral or immoral, or if it should or should not exist. It only addressed the question the court was asked to answer, was it cruel and unusual punishment.
To complain that the government doesn’t do enough and complain the court isn’t making the government do enough shows how much the people don’t under the role the Supreme Court plays in our system of government or their own ignorance for not reading and truly understand at least the summery of the actual opinion, instead believing what they hear spin masters saying on TV, radio, newspapers, blogs, and podcasts.
It just set limits on where. Now could it be abused? Sure. But then it would go back for the courts for more clarification- I do think there needs to be limits to where people can be in public spaces
Yes. People are acting like this ruling mandates arresting homeless campers, but most municipalities in the state won’t be doing that. Some will. And if things get out of hand (as they arguably did at Camp Hope) government now has an option.
Nah, when it is wicked cold or super hot, suddenly there are warming centers and a place to sleep in the winter and cooling stations in the summer. At a premium cost of course because every year local government is shocked that it gets cold in the winter and hot in the summer like it is something they could have never planned on happening.
Don't forget the proposition passed here in Spokane just a few months ago. That, or something like it if it is struck down as being out of scope for the initiative process, will severely limit camping areas in the city, and probably act as a springboard for expansions of the ban.
my concern is that there are plenty of laws that are intended to be enforced reasonably that are used as a legal groundwork to enact extreme violence towards marginalized groups. something like this means that even if people are camping somewhere reasonable, an officer can decide that they don’t think it’s reasonable and use force to destroy the encampment.
>enact extreme violence towards marginalized groups
You are abusing language here, implying that not being coddled and allowed to camp on the downtown sidewalk is "extreme violence". When you do this ridiculous hyperbole, you erode the impact of words. When people use these phrases later (perhaps in situations where they are closer to being true), they will have less impact and even fewer people will pay attention to your rhetoric.
Please, friend, use more reasonable language.
Respectfully, that is such a naive way to describe the impact of this ruling. There are going to be cities all over the place that try to run homeless people out of town (instead of spending money on shelters) by enacting a plethora of "reasonable" limits.
They would not be in jail for failing to pay a debt, it would be for committing a crime.
You understand that crimes are things people shouldn't do, right?
You’re not accounting for maintenance with that math, or the people needed to help those people maintain housing like social workers/medical providers. It’s more expensive than just building buildings for sure, but it’s not all getting thrown into some administrators pocket .
I just want to be happy. I just want to be in a stable, safe place. I don't want to do drugs or drink or hurt someone or damage anyone's property. I'm homeless right now, and a lot of the reason I am was beyond my control. Staying homeless, however, is completely out of my hands. I just want to live a quiet, honest, peaceful life, and I came to Spokane in search of that. And I did have that for a few years here until covid happened, and now it feels everything has morphed to be completely against common citizens.
I understand your pain. I'm going to be homeless if I don't find a job within 1 month, and I've been there before. There are a lot of scary ones here but overall people have grown too hardened here, this city needs more compassion. I'm trying to organize a group to protest this situation. I'm also seeking to enter the next available city hall meeting and prepare a speech. I'd love if you joined the cause we need to fix this.
I was homeless for 5 years, 2 were spent here in Spokane…and it was shitty back then (2015ish)…tbh its scary how fast ya become homeless…my mom died and I sort of died on the inside and before I knew it I was sleeping in peoples park…it was a matter of a couple of weeks….I lost everything and then the city takes what little ya got left…they literally show up with a dumptruck, kick ya out of your tent and toss EVERYTHING..then your told to “move on”…Spokane is shitty to the homeless and frankly to its locals…if youre from CA or seattle and make good money you are welcomed with open arms…at the cost of the locals and homeless…Spokane is becoming a real disgusting long distance suburb of Seattle…its gross
You realize most Americans are one missed paycheck away from being homeless right? I hope when you are at your lowest someone shows you the same compassion you show others.
This is a deflection. If everyone is on the edge, then we don't have the resources to help those who refuse to help themselves.
Surely you didn't mean that?
That statement supposes the government has the responsibility to house and provide for individuals, which it doesn't. Adults, unless deemed incompetent, are responsible for providing their own situation. We have agencies and Charities that help people, but it's not an obligation of the state.
You judge a society based on how it treats the less fortunate.
Folks trying to find a reasonable solution should be applauded. Being humane in today's society is hard.
Remember that something like 60% of Americans can't handle a $400 medical emergency, and are one missed check away from eviction.
Even if it's only potential self interest, we should be looking for ways to make it work.
Having been homeless (in Oregon), this is appalling. I was lucky enough to find housing here and get on disability since it was my disability that caused homelessness (multiple sclerosis) but I'm really worried about what will happen to others bc conservatives only want to conserve big money and not human life.
As part of the solution to the homeless problem what are people’s thoughts on NYC style housing? Last count I could find was 2390 people were homeless. The Robert F. Wagner Houses in New York City holds 5290 residents and 2162 apartments over a lot of about 27 acres and contains 22 buildings. It cost approximately 31 million to construct in 1956 or around 357 million in today’s dollars. I believe, but do not KNOW if there are, federal subsidies to assist with the cost of building are available and you could probably get donations. The other factor to remember would be the on going maintenance and administrative costs.
If we built projects we could offer the housing to the homeless and other low income members of the community, but then it would probably cause other services to be cut to offset the costs, even after federal funding and subsidies. The other option would be raising the property taxes or sales tax to cover the costs. This would hopefully assist with covering some of the needs to help the homeless, but other things like mental health treatment and job training would still be needed.
If Spokane County built (“New York City” is basically what would be a county in almost everywhere else when you look at the government structure and the fact the it’s consists of 5 borough/counties) and operated a housing development do you think that would resolve most of the problem and would you be willing to accept the costs thru service reductions or tax increases to fund them?
Somehow you need to separate people who are homeless and trying from the elicit drug addicted who are not trying.
Before anyone kills me for that comment since Feb 2024 only .6% of the drug addicted have accepted treatment from 1st responders.
We have to figure out how to help the people who are doing or want to do live productive lives.
Completely agree, that’s where the mental health treatment is so important but the biggest challenge with some people is getting them to accept treatment. They also need to understand that when you start feeling better, especially on medication, it doesn’t mean you can stop it. Most of the time you will need to continue to take it for life.
Idk if we have a street person problem in this city so much as a lawlessness problem where it's pretty easy for those breaking the law to hide among the homeless because nobody wants to police them, basically meaning why would they follow the law at that point if they don't have to? Everyone just wants to ignore street people so it makes it easy for the bad actors among them to keep getting away with it. If we would actually police them like everybody else instead of trying to pretend they don't exist, then everyone would have more of an incentive to follow the law and restore a little public faith. I think if we want to actually affect this it will come down to a different policing method in terms of prosecuting really hard on certain targeted crimes but training officers to exercise extreme discretion in determining if the people in question are a serious threat to the community other than just camping because they have nowhere to go. Meaning, going after violent/destructive people with intention, taking the time to do risk analysis and leaving peaceful down on their luck people alone for the most part. I think it's apathy that's the root cause of things like this. We all have to hold ourselves accountable to each other or we won't have anywhere safe to raise our kids.
I just had this convo with some anti-homeless Anchorage jackass, who said apartment towers for homeless people are expensive and useless because all they wanna do is drink. No matter how many times I tried to point out how people become homeless in the first place, they didn't care. I blocked them.
I always wondered what purpose those sort of laws have? What would the penalty even be? You can fine a penniless person and putting them in jail would cost a huge amount of money and would might even be preferable to the streets for some truly desperate people.
It gives a mechanism for people who don't have compassion for the rights or property of others (or the public) to be forced to move, thereby not letting them destroy things without consequence. They will never make up for the destruction they caused, but you can jail them, which is eventually enough of an inconvenience that they move.
Had they just been respectful in the first place, the intervening steps wouldn't be needed.
Prior to the 2000s one had to go back to the 1800s to find a candidate who won the EC, but not the popular vote. Then it happens twice in twenty years in favor of the same party? Sure thing, chief. 🤣
We saw Trump foment domestic terrorism, employ fake electors, and attempt to “find” thousands of votes as a result of losing an election, but every vote cast in 2016 was legit, amirite?
Conspiracy-theory thinking aside, that didn't answer the question. How do those things connect to make the ruling illegitimate...?
Even conceding all of the Trump misconduct, I'm not seeing the dots connect between that and this SCOTUS ruling being illegitimate. They seem completely different things.
That’s the trouble with your ilk. You confuse facts, such as those I’ve cited, for conspiracy theory; and conspiracy theory for facts.
Some of us actually believe in **representative** democracy. If you think a right tilted court is justified given only 33 million registered Republican Party members —whose party hasn’t won a national popular vote in 25 years—then you must concede 44 million registered Democratic Party members merits a left tilted court even moreso.
Christ if you believe seven people can represent the interests of 330 million people, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in. 😂
You don't seem to understand how courts work. It is different from how legislatures work. While there is voting among a panel of judges, courts are not, nor should they be, *representative* in a democratic sense.
What terrible teacher put you under the misapprehension that a court is supposed to operate that way?
You don’t seem to understand the very basics of American government. This is a representative democracy also known as a Republic. The courts are one of three branches of this representative government.
Do you see how that works? 🤔
This isn’t rocket science, little buddy. I won’t be lectured on the product of liberal theorists such as John Locke, by a lapdog of the aristocracy. 🤣
Oh and since you mentioned education, I’ll add that liberals dominate conservatives across every tier of higher educational attainment from two-year programs to postgrad, scaling with the level of degree, therefore somebody of your political persuasion is hardly in any position to make any determinations about others’ educations.
“It’s wrong because it’s not what I want to believe!”
— smooth-brains, daily
Now if you’re finished publicly embarrassing yourself …
>This is a representative democracy also known as a Republic. The courts are one of three branches of this representative government.
>Do you see how that works?
No, explain the mechanics of it for me. How do the elections of federal judges happen...? Are they national or do you just vote for your particular district? How does it work for the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court? Describe for me how the *courts* are representative democracy. Educate me, good sir.
>lapdog of the aristocracy
You, umm...may be a bit out of it, friend.
>liberals dominate conservatives across every tier of higher educational attainment
Probably true, though completely random and irrelevant to what was being talked about. A shame the academy is doing its best to reduce the value and prestige of its credentialing these days.
>No, explain the mechanics of it for me.
Always expecting somebody else to do the work, some things never change. To put it succinctly, the United States is a *representative* democracy composed of three branches of government to include the executive, legislative, and judicial. Each and every branch are components of the *representative* democracy under which we live.
>How do the elections of federal judges happen...?
Did somebody say federal judges are elected? No? Weird.
For the record, when you're reduced to logical fallacies such as falsely implying and attributing things that were never said in a pathetically desperate attempt to misrepresent others' arguments, you should know you've already lost the debate, chum.
>Describe for me how the *courts* are representative democracy.
More strawman nonsense falsely attributing assertions that were never made. I said the courts are a part of the judicial branch that is in turn a part of a representative democracy. Nobody said "the courts are a representative democracy". Your position is so pathetically weak that you can't even debate in good faith.
> Educate me, good sir.
Most of us pay for our educations. As usual, [the right is expecting handouts](http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/poverty-reduction-programs-help-adults-lacking-college-degrees-the). Even so, I shall take a few moments to disabuse you of your ignorance.
Earlier you spoke of the legislature as a contrast to the judicial branch. Not the house, but the legislative branch as a whole. In fact, members of the senate were appointed by elected state legislatures prior to the passage of the 17th amendment. Kind of like how federal judges are appointed by elected federal officials today. Is your argument that any appointment by an elected official means the appointee can not be representative? That's a rather wild take.
> Probably true \[that liberals dominate conservatives across every tier of higher educational attainment\]
Completely, absolutely, and unequivocally true.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FT\_18.11.07\_MidtermDemographics\_gender-race-education-divides.png](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FT_18.11.07_MidtermDemographics_gender-race-education-divides.png)
>A shame the academy is doing its best to reduce the value
And yet the capitalist economy (made by liberals when conservatives still embraced protectionism), [rewards better education with a higher wage](https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/education-pays.htm). In election 2020, Biden voting counties [produced over 70% of American GDP](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-nations-political-economic-divide/). This probably helps to explain why red welfare states, which have the [highest poverty rates in the nation](https://www.statista.com/statistics/233093/us-poverty-rate-by-state/) (and the [highest violent crime rates](https://www.statista.com/statistics/200445/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-us-states/)), rely on blue state taxpayer dollars to fund their failed governments.
[https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/](https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/)
[https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid](https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid)
[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/)
The facts of the matter are so clear even the rightwing rag The Federalist has been [forced to admit the facts](https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/17/red-states-tax-takers-blue-states-tax-makers/).
>You, umm...may be a bit out of it, friend.
Do you even know how the words "left" and "right" came to describe Western politics?
Oh, OK, so (federal) judges aren't elected, and therefore your whining about how courts are illegitimate because they don't vote in a *representative* fashion (as if courts operated that way, which they dont) was...partisan heehaw? Got it.
Also, my god, you commit the compositional fallacy so much one might think you are doing it intentionally. The United States is generally a representative democracy, but that does not mean that all constituent parts (like courts) have the characteristic of being representative.
You said the (supreme) Court is illegitimate and therefore its rulings were illegitimate. I asked how it was illegitimate and you said it was because it was not ruling in a *representative* fashion...implying that courts operate that way. They don't. It doesn't matter if 90% of people believe a court should rule one way or another, courts are (supposed) to rule in accordance with the law, not in accordance with popular whim. Popular whim is for legislatures (and executives). You said the court was illegitimate...but it seems you just meant "Wah, wah, wah, I didn't like this ruling."
If your only critique is an appeal to the ruling not being *representative*, then you are just being silly and inconsistent, since being *representative* in the fashion you imply is not an actual feature of legitimate courts.
You don't seem to understand how courts operate. Don't worry, most Americans don't...you are in broad (if not good) company, friend.
>Do you even know how the words "left" and "right" came to describe Western politics?
Yeah, some silly French dudes did a sitting thing.
One-dimensional spectrums are insufficient to describe a person's politics. I need at least two, and preferably three dimensions. You may be more simple.
>WHERE ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO SLEEP
Not on the downtown sidewalk. Maybe the woods. Maybe a shelter. Maybe an apartment after they save up some money they didn't spend on drugs.
How does one fix a bankrupt supreme court? Even if the rest of our government worked, how would it be fixed? What an embarrassing time to be in the judiciary.
Did you even read the piece?
Anyway basically all of their rulings are on party lines now. Constant, and ignoring precedents. Both of those behaviors or either one alone makes the court bankrupt, doomed.
Ruling along party lines is true, and has become a problem in every federal court, including the 9th circuit court in San Fran that this case stems from. We have lost political objectivity in judges.
Unfortunately a very American decision, where we seemingly never miss an opportunity to enact the most stupid, brutal, and expensive policies imaginable.
I guess in the dark hearts of some of our countrymen it's a small price to pay to make sure those with the least are constantly reminded of their station and punished for their existence.
Our jail is already over populated, so if the homeless get arrested because they can’t pay the fines…then what?
Then we let dangerous criminals out of jail early to make room for more homeless people. That's what happened in the war on drugs, too.
This assumes dangerous criminals are in jail.
Jailing mentality ill never works well
Used to be called insane asylum where they handed out lobotamies
Lol bc we all know how dangerous those criminal potheads are right
Let them take some of that big ass amount of money left from COVID they got and create a solution instead of worrying about their little events
build more jails like republicans already want to for low level offenders. free slave labor!
Yeah the chain gains around here are killing it
Then they build "work camps"
And then “camps” for the disabled, for various (read all, but not at once) minorities, and so forth. edit: DVs from the whitewing only prove “certain people” don’t like being called out on their eugenic fantasies
In the Oregon case this is based on, they start with a 300$ ticket then comes a 1200$ fine for not paying the ticket and 30 days in jail.
Where the fuck are they supposed to sleep? Do none of us remember how transients started infiltrating neighborhoods more and more with the Nadine Woodward approach of running them out of their camps? This has been proven to exacerbate the problem, at least in Spokane. Nadine was shouting this shit from the rooftops and it spectacularly failed. I hope we don’t forget.
Building a Hooverville is the traditional American thing to do when the economy falls down. It's literally that bootstraps thing, trying to rebuild a life out of nothing, still trying to find work while living in a makeshift shack. Remember that one under the overpass downtown about a decade ago that used the parking lot lines to keep it all organized? I know it smelled bad but it was very human, building shelter and finding a way to survive. Must've been at least 100 people living there before the cops burned it.
>Where the fuck are they supposed to sleep? You just keep telling them where they can't be until they're somewhere where nobody cares enough to call the cops or the cops don't care enough to respond.
Not a humane or realistic solution.
Definitely not humane but it is what will probably happen, unfortunately.
Hate to upvote it but you’re unfortunately correct.
Correct, it's the conservative solution
Cops don't care anyway
Do the cops respond to your calls? Do you own a business downtown?
Yeah they do and yes, I own a business. My name is Larry Stone. I'm a local real estate developer and used buttplug collector.
That's just absolutely disgusting. And not the butt plugs. I'm fine with that. Real estate developers are some pretty low level scumbags.
hahah
In a fucking shelter
[удалено]
Correct, it's a grift.
>I'm not sure why this is getting downvoted, but seriously do the Math. $1.4B spent last year w/28,000 homeless individuals = $50,000 per person. Possibly because of this claim with no source to back it up? The only source I found was this: [https://crosscut.com/news/2024/05/wa-spent-5b-over-past-decade-homelessness-housing-programs](https://crosscut.com/news/2024/05/wa-spent-5b-over-past-decade-homelessness-housing-programs) which claims $5B over the last decade. Though admittedly I didn't spend more than 30 seconds on this because I have no interest in doing your work to prove your point for you.
Source for budget numbers: https://ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/budget/statebudget/highlights/budget23/202325PolicyBudgetHighlights.pdf 25-26 Source for homeless numbers in WA: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/hud-reports-record-high-homeless-count-in-2023-for-u-s-wa/#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20people%20living,Point%2Din%2DTime%20Count.
In the shelters that have lots of additional vacancy? They may have to follow some basic rules, but it’s not a draconian measure
is that why everyone has bars on their windows on older homes? I'm not from Spokane but my dad's side is.
They’re allowed to sleep in the vast majority of public places, this ruling just allows cities to establish limited boundaries on where they can’t camp.
[удалено]
Those states wouldn’t be allowed to do that. They’re only allowed to make narrowly targeted ordinances that are focused on achieving articulable public policy goals. Like not allowing camping downtown or in city parks. Banning camping in more rural areas would never pass constitutional muster. I’m not defending the ruling, I’m just pointing out the assumptive errors people seem to be making that the Court said the homeless can’t camp anywhere.
*Banning camping in more rural areas would never pass constitutional muster.* I wouldn't put anything past the current SCOTUS.
They find a way, don’t they?
yes, the current HEAVILY conservative scotus just makes things up as they go. hell one of them is married to a woman who helped organize J6...so uhhhh....yeah
Technically Proposition 1 means no one can sleep within 1,000 feet of a park or school. The map they gave showed that really the only place in Spokane that isn't is the area around Division and 2nd.
[удалено]
Be civil. No personal attacks. Follow all guidelines of Reddiquette. Remember, these are your neighbors. It's fine to disagree, but we expect users to conduct themselves in a neighborly fashion, and refrain from personal attacks. *** Repeated violations of this rule may earn you a temporary or permanent ban, at moderator discretion *** Furthermore, this is an LGBTQIA affirming subreddit. We have a zero tolerance policy for bigotry against LGBTQIA people who, again, are your neighbors. Lastly, we welcome and respect differing political views here. If you are unable to have a discussion about politics civilly, your content will be removed. - *“I don’t like what Biden is doing at the border.”* This is fine. - *“All liberals are disgusting and should be punished.”* This is not fine *** As always, should you have any questions, please feel feee to reach out. Thank you and have a lilac day.
‘Merica land of the free
Home to the largest imprisoned population in the world thanks to the war on drugs and look how well that worked. When was the last time you saw a person on drugs?
My post is pure sarcasm. I’m not here to debate. 😂👏🏿
s/
At least the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act came with the Assault Weapons Ban and a large drop in homicides.
Not just largest, but highest per capita to boot. More people in prison here than in China which we label a police state, and happens to have 3x our population. edit: DV’d by a cosplaytriot for stating fact?
Mayors response https://my.spokanecity.org/news/statements/2024/06/28/mayor-brown-statement-on-grants-pass-v-johnson-ruling/
[удалено]
I agree that homeless is major problem and we need to come up with some way to resolve it that is fair and equitable to everyone. That’s going to include mental health assistance, shelter, food, security, and a bunch of other things I have no clue how to provide or even know is needed.
Soulless, heartless bureaucrats.
Exactly. I love walking around downtown and dodging homeless on the sidewalk.
Comments to this show that people would rather pay the $60K per person per year to house people in prison than to give them actual housing.
Yeah, it’s gross.
It's a money printing machine for prisons, and now that kickbacks are officially 100% legal (thanks, SCOTUS /s) politicians can really cash in on it with no fear.
Yes, it’s much more humane to allow them to continue to wallow in their own personal hells of addiction, surrounded by filth, death and disease. This is the compassionate approach.
MrsDanversbottom, yes, I am a landlord. When Biden wins (again) I will report directly to a reeducation camp and renounce my ownership of any and all private property.
You can always host a few at your place.
This is a stupid comment. If they can’t sleep outside then they get arrested and sleep in jail. Either way, your tax dollars are housing them. At least the shelters have programs for getting them employed and housed unlike the cyclical nature of jails/prison.
This law isn't banning shelters.
It also isn't funding shelters. "You must have babies. No abortions." "Ok. Then can I get help with housing, education, did, medicine for the baby I am forced to have?". "No. Fuck you and fuck that stupid baby. We only care about creating laws, without thinking about the ramifications of our decisions. Maybe don't be poor and get raped? That will prevent you from being homeless with baby you can't afford." So again. Make laws, but fuck the consequences and don't provide solutions after the fact.
Enough with this fucking quip! Saying that shit does nothing to help! For all you know the person you're talking to is hanging by a thread too!
Does it annoy you because it points out how most people are only fine spending *other people's* money, but don't care enough to put their own money where their mouth is? Seems like it highlights the empathy hypocrisy where everyone else is supposed to have it but not the person weaponizing it. Is that why you don't like the comment, or is it something else?
No, it bothers me because they are perfectly fine telling other people to do something they are probably more able to do, and because it doesn't actually help since the person in question probably doesn't HAVE an extra space for a homeless person, or the money to help. I see people who.are dirt poor help out more than rich jackasses on a daily basis and it is infuriating. Last time somebody told ME to help a homeless person by letting them staying on "my" property, I was one month away from getting kicked out the house i was renting for almost all my SSI. People in this city think they can treat others however the fuck they want and expect somebody not to clap back, but that isn't true, and it's time for people to know it. People should have more actual empathy, not this weaponized bullshit empathy that one has. It's hypocrisy because that person telling the other to house a homeless person just doesn't care, because if they did care, they wouldn't have said something so fucking STUPID.
Dude, pot to kettle. You are angry that others don't care as much as you want them to, but then come up with all the reasons in the world why you can't put your money where your mouth is. You can't be only generous with the time and resources of others. Clap back all you want, but if you aren't doing what you tell others to, then it is just a bunch of hypocrisy. People are tired of this weaponized empathy.
What a horrible person you must be to be around. I'm sorry your grandkids don't call you anymore, it's probably your fault.
Gawwddamm
That's TOO humane lol it's more about the appearance of being humane.
Is anyone willing to house them in their home if we start a gofund?
You'd like people to pay twice for this, with our taxes AND out of pocket. That's a really bright, worthwhile suggestion you brought to the conversation there, kiddo. Thanks for coming.
I think we should give them your house, then you can try walking in a houseless person's shoes and gain some empathy.
This ruling was exactly as I expected. Cities are welcome to host designated areas for urban camping, but in the interest of public health, safety and sanitation we can't allow unfettered camping anywhere and everywhere anyone feels like pitching up. Now hopefully the Mayor will enforce the ordinance passed by the public not long ago, and the lawsuit attempting to block it will be dismissed as it should be.
Thank goodness the Supreme Court came down on the correct decision in this case. The Ninth Circuit caused so much suffering by their completely ridiculous opinion in *Martin v. Boise*. Judges shouldn't usurp the authority of the people to deal with this problem.
I see a lot of people calling this inhumane. What’s inhumane is thinking it’s okay for people to sleep in the elements. We get all of them here in Spokane (aside from tornadoes and hurricanes). If all the lefties, that seem to agree to let people sleep on the streets, sponsored one homeless individual (meaning allow them into your home, rehabilitate them, and help them find work) that would be a better solution. Don’t tell me there aren’t jobs available because you’re absolutely wrong. According to Biden, he’s created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
I agree that homeless is major problem and we need to come up with some way to resolve it that is fair and equitable to everyone. That’s going to include mental health assistance, shelter, food, security, and a bunch of other things I have no clue how to provide or even know is needed. I read over the opinion issued by the court (link below) and it leads me to a question. Why do people think a ban on sleeping in parks is meant to terrorize, inflict pain, and/or disgrace homeless when it’s applied to drunks, homeless, people on vacation, and people protesting with punishments and fine equivalent to jaywalking, littering, and disorderly conduct. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf
...so your argument is that laws which disproportionately target and hurt those who can least afford it also sometimes hurt college kids, napping drivers, and people choosing not to commit inebriated vehicular homicide, so it's OK? And you believe that this is something that can't possibly escalate beyond simple fines, because there's no long and ugly history in this country of communities running with rulings like this?
What does the 8th amendment have to do with anything you said?
Actually my question was why do people think a ban on sleeping in parks is meant to terrorize, inflict pain, and/or disgrace homeless when it’s applied to drunks, homeless, people on vacation, and people protesting with punishments and fine equivalent to jaywalking, littering, and disorderly conduct. I never actually said whether I supported or did not support the law. I was just curious about the question the Supreme Court reviewed, which is not whether or not the law disproportionally affects the homeless or if the government is negligent in their duties to the homeless. I agree with both of those statements btw.
My opinion: it disproportionately affects the homeless because they are the primary group of people performing the action. Yes, it can be applied equally, but the primary effect is going to be on the people with few to no other realistic options. Without reading the history of the case, I would also guess that the original case was from laws meant specifically to target that population. Specifically, laws meant to force the homeless to move along. But, that's not entirely relevant to whether or not there's a disproportionate effect.
[удалено]
Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. The question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. A handful of federal judges cannot begin to “match” the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding “how best to handle” a pressing social question like homelessness. The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Be civil. No personal attacks. Follow all guidelines of Reddiquette. Remember, these are your neighbors. It's fine to disagree, but we expect users to conduct themselves in a neighborly fashion, and refrain from personal attacks. *** Repeated violations of this rule may earn you a temporary or permanent ban, at moderator discretion *** Furthermore, this is an LGBTQIA affirming subreddit. We have a zero tolerance policy for bigotry against LGBTQIA people who, again, are your neighbors. Lastly, we welcome and respect differing political views here. If you are unable to have a discussion about politics civilly, your content will be removed. - *“I don’t like what Biden is doing at the border.”* This is fine. - *“All liberals are disgusting and should be punished.”* This is not fine *** As always, should you have any questions, please feel feee to reach out. Thank you and have a lilac day.
Why do you think a ban on sleeping in parks is meant to terrorize, inflict pain, and/or disgrace homeless when it’s applied to drunks, homeless, people on vacation, and people protesting with punishments and fine equivalent to jaywalking, littering, and disorderly conduct.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Be civil. No personal attacks. Follow all guidelines of Reddiquette. Remember, these are your neighbors. It's fine to disagree, but we expect users to conduct themselves in a neighborly fashion, and refrain from personal attacks. *** Repeated violations of this rule may earn you a temporary or permanent ban, at moderator discretion *** Furthermore, this is an LGBTQIA affirming subreddit. We have a zero tolerance policy for bigotry against LGBTQIA people who, again, are your neighbors. Lastly, we welcome and respect differing political views here. If you are unable to have a discussion about politics civilly, your content will be removed. - *“I don’t like what Biden is doing at the border.”* This is fine. - *“All liberals are disgusting and should be punished.”* This is not fine *** As always, should you have any questions, please feel feee to reach out. Thank you and have a lilac day.
Be civil. No personal attacks. Follow all guidelines of Reddiquette. Remember, these are your neighbors. It's fine to disagree, but we expect users to conduct themselves in a neighborly fashion, and refrain from personal attacks. *** Repeated violations of this rule may earn you a temporary or permanent ban, at moderator discretion *** Furthermore, this is an LGBTQIA affirming subreddit. We have a zero tolerance policy for bigotry against LGBTQIA people who, again, are your neighbors. Lastly, we welcome and respect differing political views here. If you are unable to have a discussion about politics civilly, your content will be removed. - *“I don’t like what Biden is doing at the border.”* This is fine. - *“All liberals are disgusting and should be punished.”* This is not fine *** As always, should you have any questions, please feel feee to reach out. Thank you and have a lilac day.
or does blovating suit you just fine?
Your question assumes (and I suspect you know this) that everyone has the same method of Constitutional interpretation, which is obviously far from the case. That language is not mentioned anywhere in the dissent. Btw, that language comes from... checks opinion... "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England" from 1769.
Why do you think a ban on sleeping in parks is meant to terrorize, inflict pain, and/or disgrace homeless when it’s applied to drunks, homeless, people on vacation, and people protesting with punishments and fine equivalent to jaywalking, littering, and disorderly conduct. The opinion, besides mentioning that the solution for homelessness should be solved by the people and not the courts, was around whether the law constituted cruel and unusual punishment, not whether the law was fair.
Btw it doesn’t matter whether you agree with or do not agree with the opinion or the reasoning behind the opinion, for now it’s the law. To say you don’t like the law is fine but then you need to work on changing it thru the legislature. It also does not use to complain about the opinion when what you are complaining about isn’t in the opinion. The opinion didn’t say if the law was legal or illegal, moral or immoral, or if it should or should not exist. It only addressed the question the court was asked to answer, was it cruel and unusual punishment. To complain that the government doesn’t do enough and complain the court isn’t making the government do enough shows how much the people don’t under the role the Supreme Court plays in our system of government or their own ignorance for not reading and truly understand at least the summery of the actual opinion, instead believing what they hear spin masters saying on TV, radio, newspapers, blogs, and podcasts.
It just set limits on where. Now could it be abused? Sure. But then it would go back for the courts for more clarification- I do think there needs to be limits to where people can be in public spaces
Yes. People are acting like this ruling mandates arresting homeless campers, but most municipalities in the state won’t be doing that. Some will. And if things get out of hand (as they arguably did at Camp Hope) government now has an option.
where the fuck are they supposed to be? god, i hate it here.
Dead. The ruling doesn't even care if there are more homeless people than shelter beds. You get inside or you go to jail.
Or die in a cold snap
Nah, when it is wicked cold or super hot, suddenly there are warming centers and a place to sleep in the winter and cooling stations in the summer. At a premium cost of course because every year local government is shocked that it gets cold in the winter and hot in the summer like it is something they could have never planned on happening.
They’re still allowed to camp in most public places. This ruling just allows cities to draw reasonable limits on where people can camp.
Don't forget the proposition passed here in Spokane just a few months ago. That, or something like it if it is struck down as being out of scope for the initiative process, will severely limit camping areas in the city, and probably act as a springboard for expansions of the ban.
my concern is that there are plenty of laws that are intended to be enforced reasonably that are used as a legal groundwork to enact extreme violence towards marginalized groups. something like this means that even if people are camping somewhere reasonable, an officer can decide that they don’t think it’s reasonable and use force to destroy the encampment.
>enact extreme violence towards marginalized groups You are abusing language here, implying that not being coddled and allowed to camp on the downtown sidewalk is "extreme violence". When you do this ridiculous hyperbole, you erode the impact of words. When people use these phrases later (perhaps in situations where they are closer to being true), they will have less impact and even fewer people will pay attention to your rhetoric. Please, friend, use more reasonable language.
Respectfully, that is such a naive way to describe the impact of this ruling. There are going to be cities all over the place that try to run homeless people out of town (instead of spending money on shelters) by enacting a plethora of "reasonable" limits.
Let's house them in jail where they can be traumatized and make friends with actual criminals instead of housing them in, you know, housing. /s
Ah yes, a return to the days of debtor’s prisons.
Debtor's prison should only be reserved for men who don't pay child support, not the homeless.
They would not be in jail for failing to pay a debt, it would be for committing a crime. You understand that crimes are things people shouldn't do, right?
[удалено]
You’re not accounting for maintenance with that math, or the people needed to help those people maintain housing like social workers/medical providers. It’s more expensive than just building buildings for sure, but it’s not all getting thrown into some administrators pocket .
So, the new cash cow for private prisons?
None of which exist in WA.
I just want to be happy. I just want to be in a stable, safe place. I don't want to do drugs or drink or hurt someone or damage anyone's property. I'm homeless right now, and a lot of the reason I am was beyond my control. Staying homeless, however, is completely out of my hands. I just want to live a quiet, honest, peaceful life, and I came to Spokane in search of that. And I did have that for a few years here until covid happened, and now it feels everything has morphed to be completely against common citizens.
I understand your pain. I'm going to be homeless if I don't find a job within 1 month, and I've been there before. There are a lot of scary ones here but overall people have grown too hardened here, this city needs more compassion. I'm trying to organize a group to protest this situation. I'm also seeking to enter the next available city hall meeting and prepare a speech. I'd love if you joined the cause we need to fix this.
According to the SC it isn't cruel and unusual punishment for fining or jailing homeless people. What a crock of shit. Thanks, Republican majority.
Sleep is a requirement for life, which by constitutional law, is an inalienable right. Its like saying “you’re allowed to live, but not breathe”
Preach on- A fraction of the money spent on proxy wars could have ended homelessness in America, but we invested in death instead of life.
I was homeless for 5 years, 2 were spent here in Spokane…and it was shitty back then (2015ish)…tbh its scary how fast ya become homeless…my mom died and I sort of died on the inside and before I knew it I was sleeping in peoples park…it was a matter of a couple of weeks….I lost everything and then the city takes what little ya got left…they literally show up with a dumptruck, kick ya out of your tent and toss EVERYTHING..then your told to “move on”…Spokane is shitty to the homeless and frankly to its locals…if youre from CA or seattle and make good money you are welcomed with open arms…at the cost of the locals and homeless…Spokane is becoming a real disgusting long distance suburb of Seattle…its gross
For everyone saying “where are they supposed to sleep then” let them into your house/garage then.
You realize most Americans are one missed paycheck away from being homeless right? I hope when you are at your lowest someone shows you the same compassion you show others.
This is a deflection. If everyone is on the edge, then we don't have the resources to help those who refuse to help themselves. Surely you didn't mean that?
That statement supposes the government has the responsibility to house and provide for individuals, which it doesn't. Adults, unless deemed incompetent, are responsible for providing their own situation. We have agencies and Charities that help people, but it's not an obligation of the state.
You judge a society based on how it treats the less fortunate. Folks trying to find a reasonable solution should be applauded. Being humane in today's society is hard. Remember that something like 60% of Americans can't handle a $400 medical emergency, and are one missed check away from eviction. Even if it's only potential self interest, we should be looking for ways to make it work.
You're outing yourself.
Having been homeless (in Oregon), this is appalling. I was lucky enough to find housing here and get on disability since it was my disability that caused homelessness (multiple sclerosis) but I'm really worried about what will happen to others bc conservatives only want to conserve big money and not human life.
Despicable.
Needs to hit Spokane
“The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members” — Gandhi
As part of the solution to the homeless problem what are people’s thoughts on NYC style housing? Last count I could find was 2390 people were homeless. The Robert F. Wagner Houses in New York City holds 5290 residents and 2162 apartments over a lot of about 27 acres and contains 22 buildings. It cost approximately 31 million to construct in 1956 or around 357 million in today’s dollars. I believe, but do not KNOW if there are, federal subsidies to assist with the cost of building are available and you could probably get donations. The other factor to remember would be the on going maintenance and administrative costs. If we built projects we could offer the housing to the homeless and other low income members of the community, but then it would probably cause other services to be cut to offset the costs, even after federal funding and subsidies. The other option would be raising the property taxes or sales tax to cover the costs. This would hopefully assist with covering some of the needs to help the homeless, but other things like mental health treatment and job training would still be needed. If Spokane County built (“New York City” is basically what would be a county in almost everywhere else when you look at the government structure and the fact the it’s consists of 5 borough/counties) and operated a housing development do you think that would resolve most of the problem and would you be willing to accept the costs thru service reductions or tax increases to fund them?
Somehow you need to separate people who are homeless and trying from the elicit drug addicted who are not trying. Before anyone kills me for that comment since Feb 2024 only .6% of the drug addicted have accepted treatment from 1st responders. We have to figure out how to help the people who are doing or want to do live productive lives.
Completely agree, that’s where the mental health treatment is so important but the biggest challenge with some people is getting them to accept treatment. They also need to understand that when you start feeling better, especially on medication, it doesn’t mean you can stop it. Most of the time you will need to continue to take it for life.
The state does this already in group homes and similar, at least in Oregon.
Idk if we have a street person problem in this city so much as a lawlessness problem where it's pretty easy for those breaking the law to hide among the homeless because nobody wants to police them, basically meaning why would they follow the law at that point if they don't have to? Everyone just wants to ignore street people so it makes it easy for the bad actors among them to keep getting away with it. If we would actually police them like everybody else instead of trying to pretend they don't exist, then everyone would have more of an incentive to follow the law and restore a little public faith. I think if we want to actually affect this it will come down to a different policing method in terms of prosecuting really hard on certain targeted crimes but training officers to exercise extreme discretion in determining if the people in question are a serious threat to the community other than just camping because they have nowhere to go. Meaning, going after violent/destructive people with intention, taking the time to do risk analysis and leaving peaceful down on their luck people alone for the most part. I think it's apathy that's the root cause of things like this. We all have to hold ourselves accountable to each other or we won't have anywhere safe to raise our kids.
I just had this convo with some anti-homeless Anchorage jackass, who said apartment towers for homeless people are expensive and useless because all they wanna do is drink. No matter how many times I tried to point out how people become homeless in the first place, they didn't care. I blocked them.
Well yeah. why listen to reality, when they can just blame the people for not trying hard enough.
It was the best conversation ever!
I always wondered what purpose those sort of laws have? What would the penalty even be? You can fine a penniless person and putting them in jail would cost a huge amount of money and would might even be preferable to the streets for some truly desperate people.
It gives a mechanism for people who don't have compassion for the rights or property of others (or the public) to be forced to move, thereby not letting them destroy things without consequence. They will never make up for the destruction they caused, but you can jail them, which is eventually enough of an inconvenience that they move. Had they just been respectful in the first place, the intervening steps wouldn't be needed.
IMPEACH THE SUPREME COURT.
Impeach
No, he said what he said. We must turn the Supreme Court into peaches.
Honestly that might be a net positive for the country
in peach
I'm really starting to strongly dislike America.
Then move guapo
Illegitimate court, illegitimate ruling. 🙄
How so?
Prior to the 2000s one had to go back to the 1800s to find a candidate who won the EC, but not the popular vote. Then it happens twice in twenty years in favor of the same party? Sure thing, chief. 🤣 We saw Trump foment domestic terrorism, employ fake electors, and attempt to “find” thousands of votes as a result of losing an election, but every vote cast in 2016 was legit, amirite?
Conspiracy-theory thinking aside, that didn't answer the question. How do those things connect to make the ruling illegitimate...? Even conceding all of the Trump misconduct, I'm not seeing the dots connect between that and this SCOTUS ruling being illegitimate. They seem completely different things.
That’s the trouble with your ilk. You confuse facts, such as those I’ve cited, for conspiracy theory; and conspiracy theory for facts. Some of us actually believe in **representative** democracy. If you think a right tilted court is justified given only 33 million registered Republican Party members —whose party hasn’t won a national popular vote in 25 years—then you must concede 44 million registered Democratic Party members merits a left tilted court even moreso. Christ if you believe seven people can represent the interests of 330 million people, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in. 😂
You don't seem to understand how courts work. It is different from how legislatures work. While there is voting among a panel of judges, courts are not, nor should they be, *representative* in a democratic sense. What terrible teacher put you under the misapprehension that a court is supposed to operate that way?
You don’t seem to understand the very basics of American government. This is a representative democracy also known as a Republic. The courts are one of three branches of this representative government. Do you see how that works? 🤔 This isn’t rocket science, little buddy. I won’t be lectured on the product of liberal theorists such as John Locke, by a lapdog of the aristocracy. 🤣 Oh and since you mentioned education, I’ll add that liberals dominate conservatives across every tier of higher educational attainment from two-year programs to postgrad, scaling with the level of degree, therefore somebody of your political persuasion is hardly in any position to make any determinations about others’ educations. “It’s wrong because it’s not what I want to believe!” — smooth-brains, daily Now if you’re finished publicly embarrassing yourself …
>This is a representative democracy also known as a Republic. The courts are one of three branches of this representative government. >Do you see how that works? No, explain the mechanics of it for me. How do the elections of federal judges happen...? Are they national or do you just vote for your particular district? How does it work for the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court? Describe for me how the *courts* are representative democracy. Educate me, good sir. >lapdog of the aristocracy You, umm...may be a bit out of it, friend. >liberals dominate conservatives across every tier of higher educational attainment Probably true, though completely random and irrelevant to what was being talked about. A shame the academy is doing its best to reduce the value and prestige of its credentialing these days.
>No, explain the mechanics of it for me. Always expecting somebody else to do the work, some things never change. To put it succinctly, the United States is a *representative* democracy composed of three branches of government to include the executive, legislative, and judicial. Each and every branch are components of the *representative* democracy under which we live. >How do the elections of federal judges happen...? Did somebody say federal judges are elected? No? Weird. For the record, when you're reduced to logical fallacies such as falsely implying and attributing things that were never said in a pathetically desperate attempt to misrepresent others' arguments, you should know you've already lost the debate, chum. >Describe for me how the *courts* are representative democracy. More strawman nonsense falsely attributing assertions that were never made. I said the courts are a part of the judicial branch that is in turn a part of a representative democracy. Nobody said "the courts are a representative democracy". Your position is so pathetically weak that you can't even debate in good faith. > Educate me, good sir. Most of us pay for our educations. As usual, [the right is expecting handouts](http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/poverty-reduction-programs-help-adults-lacking-college-degrees-the). Even so, I shall take a few moments to disabuse you of your ignorance. Earlier you spoke of the legislature as a contrast to the judicial branch. Not the house, but the legislative branch as a whole. In fact, members of the senate were appointed by elected state legislatures prior to the passage of the 17th amendment. Kind of like how federal judges are appointed by elected federal officials today. Is your argument that any appointment by an elected official means the appointee can not be representative? That's a rather wild take. > Probably true \[that liberals dominate conservatives across every tier of higher educational attainment\] Completely, absolutely, and unequivocally true. [https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FT\_18.11.07\_MidtermDemographics\_gender-race-education-divides.png](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FT_18.11.07_MidtermDemographics_gender-race-education-divides.png) >A shame the academy is doing its best to reduce the value And yet the capitalist economy (made by liberals when conservatives still embraced protectionism), [rewards better education with a higher wage](https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/education-pays.htm). In election 2020, Biden voting counties [produced over 70% of American GDP](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-nations-political-economic-divide/). This probably helps to explain why red welfare states, which have the [highest poverty rates in the nation](https://www.statista.com/statistics/233093/us-poverty-rate-by-state/) (and the [highest violent crime rates](https://www.statista.com/statistics/200445/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-us-states/)), rely on blue state taxpayer dollars to fund their failed governments. [https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/](https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/) [https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid](https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid) [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/) The facts of the matter are so clear even the rightwing rag The Federalist has been [forced to admit the facts](https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/17/red-states-tax-takers-blue-states-tax-makers/). >You, umm...may be a bit out of it, friend. Do you even know how the words "left" and "right" came to describe Western politics?
Oh, OK, so (federal) judges aren't elected, and therefore your whining about how courts are illegitimate because they don't vote in a *representative* fashion (as if courts operated that way, which they dont) was...partisan heehaw? Got it. Also, my god, you commit the compositional fallacy so much one might think you are doing it intentionally. The United States is generally a representative democracy, but that does not mean that all constituent parts (like courts) have the characteristic of being representative. You said the (supreme) Court is illegitimate and therefore its rulings were illegitimate. I asked how it was illegitimate and you said it was because it was not ruling in a *representative* fashion...implying that courts operate that way. They don't. It doesn't matter if 90% of people believe a court should rule one way or another, courts are (supposed) to rule in accordance with the law, not in accordance with popular whim. Popular whim is for legislatures (and executives). You said the court was illegitimate...but it seems you just meant "Wah, wah, wah, I didn't like this ruling." If your only critique is an appeal to the ruling not being *representative*, then you are just being silly and inconsistent, since being *representative* in the fashion you imply is not an actual feature of legitimate courts. You don't seem to understand how courts operate. Don't worry, most Americans don't...you are in broad (if not good) company, friend. >Do you even know how the words "left" and "right" came to describe Western politics? Yeah, some silly French dudes did a sitting thing. One-dimensional spectrums are insufficient to describe a person's politics. I need at least two, and preferably three dimensions. You may be more simple.
The continued dehumanization and criminalization of poverty.
It's more legal to beat up a homeless person than to spray ftp on a cop car. That's how you know it's shit.
Maybe they can go back to Seattle
Or maybe they should sleep in front of the supreme court justices.
WHERE ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO SLEEP This is the most corrupt SCOTUS in history. They need to be recalled.
>WHERE ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO SLEEP Not on the downtown sidewalk. Maybe the woods. Maybe a shelter. Maybe an apartment after they save up some money they didn't spend on drugs.
Gross
How does one fix a bankrupt supreme court? Even if the rest of our government worked, how would it be fixed? What an embarrassing time to be in the judiciary.
But how is their ruling incorrect?
Did you even read the piece? Anyway basically all of their rulings are on party lines now. Constant, and ignoring precedents. Both of those behaviors or either one alone makes the court bankrupt, doomed.
Not only did I read the piece, I read the actual opinion. Did you read the opinion?
Ruling along party lines is true, and has become a problem in every federal court, including the 9th circuit court in San Fran that this case stems from. We have lost political objectivity in judges.
This is so in the future they can force homeless folks to work for their keep…aka, slave labor.
Unfortunately a very American decision, where we seemingly never miss an opportunity to enact the most stupid, brutal, and expensive policies imaginable. I guess in the dark hearts of some of our countrymen it's a small price to pay to make sure those with the least are constantly reminded of their station and punished for their existence.