A group of homeless and formerly homeless Boise residents challenged the law, arguing that it violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment when it is used as the basis for criminal penalties against homeless people who are sleeping outside because they cannot find space in a shelter. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed with the challengers, holding that the city cannot impose criminal penalties on homeless residents “for lacking the means to live out the universal and unavoidable consequences of being human.”...
The creation of a de facto constitutional right,” the city argued, “to live on sidewalks and in parks will cripple the ability of more than 1,600 municipalities in the Ninth Circuit to maintain the health and safety of their communities.”
December 16, 2019
The Supreme Court rejected a case about whether a city could make camping and sleeping in public a crime.
SCOTUSblog reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
54 comments:
Is there any restriction on how nice a tent it can be? When I went to Africa the tent I stayed in was nicer than a suite at the Ritz Carlton. Seems like an opportunity for an ambitious capitalist...
In its majestic equality, the law permits rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
That's the old 9th Circuit .....
Allowing humans to live in the street is not an expression of compassion.
The fact that the courts are being asked to consider this as a serious question is a certain tell that we have entered the Latter Days.
There is a homeless encampment less than a mile from my home, in the tinder dry brush of the Santa Ana mountains. Three times since I've lived here, squatters have started catastrophic wildfires that burned literally up to my back yard. The resources required to put these fires out have been in the tens of millions, equally the property lost. Apparently the authorities are cowed by cesspools of insanity such as the Ninth Circuit. They have done nothing about the encampment in all these years. I'm really not sure why my rights as a homeowner must be subjugated to the "rights" of the homeless.
What if the city can prove that there are enough spaces in the shelters, but that those living on the street prefer living on the street?
How long until we institute TNR campaigns for the homeless?
Democrats may want to buy boots.
They're called shit kickers for a reason.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Anatole France
About half the "homeless" are psychotic and will not stay in shelters.
because they cannot find space in a shelter
So the city can make it illegal if there is room and they're choosing not to go?
You can't bring in alcohol or drugs, so someone like Hunter Biden's crack dealer that was in the homeless encampment wouldn't be allowed in.
Cue the BLM. Plenty of space out there to poop and shoot though probably not many services.
Replying to Gahrie who assumes everyone knows his acronyms. "We’re TNR Campaigns, a political strategy and creative agency that produces award-winning media and builds digitally-powered communications campaigns."
The law, in its majestic equality......
I was under the impression that the Law was an ass.
Funny how 'vagrancy' used to be a crime and there seemed to be no Constitutional ruling against it. Until the 1960's, of course.
I suggest we set up a homeless encampment in front of the Supreme Court building. The aromas in the summer should be lovely
The court will probably not take the case until there is a disagreement between the circuits.
TNR = trap, neuter, release.
As a thought experiment, would a universal basic income eliminate homelessness? Either no the rent too damn high, or no they would spend it all on drugs and alcohol.
I would suggest alcohol as it has calories.
I thought they'd take the case. Powerful dissent from en banc review, a powerful cert petition pointing out the circuit split, and a broad spectrum of amici.
Sleeping under bridges was already a constitutional right, I thought. Majesty of the law and so forth.
If there is already a split in the circuits, they may be waiting until the D.C. Circuit rules.
I got the impression that the 9th Circuit ruling regards criminal penalties for public camping. I wouldn't want to throw people in jail for such things, and I would only fine them if they weren't homeless. If the the ruling means that the police can't move the campers along, then there is going to be a problem. As a commenter above notes, if you disagree with the ruling here, just set up a camp in the court's buildings and steps. I think having the judges walk through shit every day might get them to see the light.
Move the bums to the sidewalks in front of Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer. And Roberts, just in case he gets any ideas.
I feel the homeless have the right to sleep on any property they own.
I am in Tacoma, and it has gotten so bad. This issue is posed as “live and let live” but these addicts and transients endanger MY kids. People wonder why kids these days don’t play outside or unsupervised. I have found encampments at our nice good school district suburban parks, with syringes and condoms and used tampons. It’s a health hazard! Any natural green space for climbing trees or building stick forts also attracts these bums. It infuriates me—I want my boys to gain independence and play in the great outdoors without having to talk to them about not touching syringes. Or explaining why we left a park early due to an encampment. If jail is the only deterrent , then so be it.
All those coders who make Poop on the Street Apps are cheering.
Wait, I thought Trump "fixed" the Ninth?
Wild chicken: decision predates Trump appointees, some of whom can't be seated until next month. But he has filled all vacancies.
My sympathies lie with the street-sleepers. Wouldn't want to be one. And I'm in SF.
However, whenever SF closes a jail or juvenile facility - and they do - they never have that V-8 moment that says hey here's hundreds of beds, kitchen, laundries, bathroom, safety etc - all SET UP!
They don't because the Homeless Advocates won't let them.
So: letting the 9th circuit decision stand against those municipalities who want to prevent the homeless from occupying public land; but also upholding a municipality restricting the development of property on or near wetlands.
I wonder on the politics behind not granting cert.
Homeless is a huge issue, but nobody wants the political headache of dealing with the nasty core issues of Drug Use and Mental Health Issues.
9th circuit decision has been a nightmare for cities trying to deal with the issue. And it's making the cities unlivable, with the police unable to do much about it.
If people don't like it, do something about it. The USA is a Democracy (and jeez don't give the "WE're a Republic Crap). Don't like the homeless - start organizing. Start protesting. Start contacting your LOCAL officials.
But middle class people won't do that. Too boring. Too much work. So, stop grumbling and eat your broccoli.
This just shows that if you don't want the SCOTUS to make decisions like this, you'll have to support "Right-wing extremists" like Alioto and Thomas. And not "Moderates" like Roberts. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh voted with the Democrats.
I am in Tacoma, and it has gotten so bad.
Olympia is just as bad, if not worse.
serious question?
WHO OWNS the sidewalks in front of stores? That is; where's the property line?
Are these sidewalks Actually on private property, or is it Really Public land?
Living on city streets is almost exclusively the Democrats' problem, so they shouldn't be allowed to use Republican strategies to solve it.
“Are these sidewalks Actually on private property, or is it Really Public land?”
Usually the sidewalks are public property, but the owner of the adjacent property is responsible for maintenance of the sidewalks.
Usually sidewalks are private property with a public easement.
What Yancey Ward said. It's only the liberal gentry who don't have to live with the consequences of disorder and crime who think that the mentally ill and drug addicts should have the right to occupy public spaces.
https://ballotpedia.org/Denver,_Colorado,_Initiated_Ordinance_300,_"Right_to_Survive"_Initiative_(May_2019)
Probably Denver, the cowshit city, voted based on a bunch of racists voting. Why allow that even, if it's (as we know) RACIST??
83-17.
I sure hope my city isn't racist, even re-electing the Clinton bitch.
But we as a group kicked the fuck out of these drug dealer's with lobbyists.
As Chicago shows, no corruption is too extreme to warrant anything less than more money for the extremeness.
Otherwise Racist. Racist, racist, racist.
Earnest Prole said...
Usually sidewalks are private property with a public easement.
That's how it was in Ames (where i had a sidewalk); and being private property, i was legally liable for any injuries walkers might occur (thus; the need for property owner's insurance)
SO...
The courts are saying that:
A) people have a right to camp on MY property? FREE OF CHARGE?
B) I can't tell them to leave, even if they're obstructing my cookouts, etc?
C) I am liable for Any injuries that might occur to these 'campers'?
Which county is this, again?
Idaho should withdraw from the 9th circuit, which is way too big, and join the 10th. I wonder if that's possible.
Is there an ordinance against using power washers to clean the sidewalks at 4 am? Ok ok, 7 am?
In SF there's no enforcement of public urination ordinances, and it'd be a shame if the business owner relieved himself uphill from the bum. Ditto for dogs.
Send them to DC and tell them the USSC will take care of you.
Does this mean that I'm now free to "camp" just about anywhere I want to on public property? This could open so many places to explore around the country!
Outrageous.
What about shitting in the stores? SCOTUS gonna ignore that to?
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/shock-photo-san-fran-homeless-defecates-in-grocery-store-aisle/
rcocean said...
"Start contacting your LOCAL officials."
They did. And the local officials passed a law against sleeping on the sidewalk. And the Ninth Circuit struck it down. And the SCOTUS declined to look into the matter.
So are we all on the same page now?
Put them all on the good ship Harvey Milk.
In 1999 there was a homeless vet about my age, I got to know. I worked with the local VA hospital to get him into a homeless program at the hospital. I put him in my car, and drove him to the VA. This was late fall.
Christmas eve, I saw him outside the same Safeway grocery store I had first met him.
This is the poem I wrote:
Death On Christmas Eve
I met death
on Christmas Eve.
He sat with a man
homeless by choice.
Offered life
he chose death.
Offered freedom
in the rules of the shelter
he chose bondage
in the freedom of the streets.
The Joy of Christmas
is no longer simple.
The baby in coming
offers the choice
to reject life
and choose death.
The essence of tragedy
to see the horror of man
choosing death as a partner.
(C) PresbyPoet December 24, 1999
"Is there any restriction on how nice a tent it can be?"
Let Boise write a more precise law, then, and restrict the size or the permanency of the tents or forbid the rental of tents or whatever. The courts have to judge the law the city actually passed, which (apparently) made it a crime, essentially, to exist in a place and have nothing.
Never mind the courthouse steps. Where's the back entrance the judges use? Fill that sidewalk with tents and shit. Then find the judges' houses. Round up some homeless with free cigarettes, booze and drugs. Drop them off in front of the judges' homes with complimentary tents and sleeping bags. Three times a day, show up and pass out lots of food in wrappers that will blow around effectively, and don't forget fresh needles! The dealers will find them, no worries.
Blogger rcocean said...
If people don't like it, do something about it. The USA is a Democracy (and jeez don't give the "WE're a Republic Crap). Don't like the homeless - start organizing. Start protesting. Start contacting your LOCAL officials.
But middle class people won't do that. Too boring. Too much work. So, stop grumbling and eat your broccoli.
12/16/19, 3:52 PM
“...all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. ...”
Post a Comment