"The law, in its majestic equality"
June 28, 2024 8:36 AM Subscribe
Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Sleeping Outdoors (NYT)
Supreme Court Says Ban on Homeless Camping Does Not Violate Constitution (WaPo)
Supreme Court Allows Policy Targeting Homeless People (NBC)
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Enforce Laws Against Homeless Encampments (LA Times)
Supreme Court Gives Cities More Power to Crack Down on Homeless Camps (CalMatters)
Supreme Court posts get a Supremes song: here's 'Tumbling Tumbleweeds.'
Supreme Court Says Ban on Homeless Camping Does Not Violate Constitution (WaPo)
Supreme Court Allows Policy Targeting Homeless People (NBC)
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Enforce Laws Against Homeless Encampments (LA Times)
Supreme Court Gives Cities More Power to Crack Down on Homeless Camps (CalMatters)
Supreme Court posts get a Supremes song: here's 'Tumbling Tumbleweeds.'
So, we're back to having Penury laws. Great.
posted by Silvery Fish at 8:50 AM on June 28 [13 favorites]
posted by Silvery Fish at 8:50 AM on June 28 [13 favorites]
“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in dissent. “For some people, sleeping outside is their only option. For people with no access to shelter, that punishes them for being homeless. That is unconscionable and unconstitutional. Punishing people for their status is ‘cruel and unusual’ under the 8th Amendment.”
Officials argue that their policies are aimed at encouraging homeless people to seek housing, although the city itself does not have its own shelter. It directs people to one run by a religious organization that has limited space and imposes conditions that some homeless people object to.
This fucking sucks. I hate that we have so few supreme court judges, that they have supreme power at all, and most of em are just pieces of shit that should have their homes taken away from them, as a not-cruel and not-unusual punishment for the violence they inflict upon americans with their shitty power & decision making processes. We can apparently pick and choose what is cruel or not and normalize literally anything, so why not subject those who lord over us to the same conditions of those lorded over? Less unfair than what we have now.
Homelessness is a complex issue that is obviously, undeniably, inarguably not fucking served by making it a crime to be asleep. Neil Gorsuch, you are a stupid shitweed with no moral character or logical reasoning ability, who is actively hostile to Americans and is acting as an enemy of the state and American people. When I see you in hell, I'm taking whatever burning shithole you try to sleep in every night for the rest of our eternities.
posted by GoblinHoney at 8:54 AM on June 28 [62 favorites]
Officials argue that their policies are aimed at encouraging homeless people to seek housing, although the city itself does not have its own shelter. It directs people to one run by a religious organization that has limited space and imposes conditions that some homeless people object to.
This fucking sucks. I hate that we have so few supreme court judges, that they have supreme power at all, and most of em are just pieces of shit that should have their homes taken away from them, as a not-cruel and not-unusual punishment for the violence they inflict upon americans with their shitty power & decision making processes. We can apparently pick and choose what is cruel or not and normalize literally anything, so why not subject those who lord over us to the same conditions of those lorded over? Less unfair than what we have now.
Homelessness is a complex issue that is obviously, undeniably, inarguably not fucking served by making it a crime to be asleep. Neil Gorsuch, you are a stupid shitweed with no moral character or logical reasoning ability, who is actively hostile to Americans and is acting as an enemy of the state and American people. When I see you in hell, I'm taking whatever burning shithole you try to sleep in every night for the rest of our eternities.
posted by GoblinHoney at 8:54 AM on June 28 [62 favorites]
Ugh. The What Next podcast did a good segment on this - it's an interview with a medical professional who works with the homeless in Oregon. He noted that if you don't let people sleep within the city-lines, that means they'll end up sleeping in the woods, making it harder for doctors like him to tend to them, but also making them more vulnerable to wildfires. Very pro-life Supreme Court indeed.
posted by coffeecat at 8:59 AM on June 28 [26 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 8:59 AM on June 28 [26 favorites]
Seeing Chevron fall, now this. It feels like any hope of justice in the future is just evaporating right in front of my eyes in real time.
posted by Dr. Twist at 9:01 AM on June 28 [22 favorites]
posted by Dr. Twist at 9:01 AM on June 28 [22 favorites]
You can predict the outcome of this court's decisions with two questions:
A: Will it cause chaos?
B: Is it cruel?
They seem to feel it's bonus points if the answer to both is yes. I feel bad for the dissenters, they've got to work with these assholes.
posted by los pantalones del muerte at 9:07 AM on June 28 [24 favorites]
A: Will it cause chaos?
B: Is it cruel?
They seem to feel it's bonus points if the answer to both is yes. I feel bad for the dissenters, they've got to work with these assholes.
posted by los pantalones del muerte at 9:07 AM on June 28 [24 favorites]
Years ago, hitching across the country, I was in a small town in Wyoming. While eating at a local diner, the only other patron was this old timer, a grizzled old regular and local. Being an outsider, I didn't want to make any missteps, so I asked him where around town I could put my tent to sleep, and he took a look at me and then said: "This is still America isn't it?"
posted by iamck at 9:25 AM on June 28 [43 favorites]
posted by iamck at 9:25 AM on June 28 [43 favorites]
Did any of the Supreme Court Justices write "are there no work houses" because I feel like that that's what they are hoping will happen in the end
posted by Kitteh at 9:35 AM on June 28 [26 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 9:35 AM on June 28 [26 favorites]
We have workhouses, we just call them prisons.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:39 AM on June 28 [44 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 9:39 AM on June 28 [44 favorites]
Can I sleep in my pup tent in the backyard?
posted by Czjewel at 9:41 AM on June 28 [4 favorites]
posted by Czjewel at 9:41 AM on June 28 [4 favorites]
Link to the actual opinion, if you want to read it unmediated by news reports.
posted by alligatorpear at 9:41 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]
posted by alligatorpear at 9:41 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]
To be honest, I wouldn’t be shocked at this point if a majority of the American electorate was fine with killing homeless people.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:43 AM on June 28 [11 favorites]
posted by ryanshepard at 9:43 AM on June 28 [11 favorites]
workhouses, we just call them prisons
Prisoners in the US are part of a hidden workforce linked to hundreds of popular food brands [AP]
posted by HearHere at 9:44 AM on June 28 [13 favorites]
Prisoners in the US are part of a hidden workforce linked to hundreds of popular food brands [AP]
posted by HearHere at 9:44 AM on June 28 [13 favorites]
To be honest, I wouldn’t be shocked at this point if a majority of the American electorate was fine with killing homeless people.
The reds already proved this during COVID wrt to just killing any number of people from all walks of life including their own. It's a bloodthirsty ideology and culture.
posted by GoblinHoney at 9:49 AM on June 28 [9 favorites]
The reds already proved this during COVID wrt to just killing any number of people from all walks of life including their own. It's a bloodthirsty ideology and culture.
posted by GoblinHoney at 9:49 AM on June 28 [9 favorites]
Officials argue that their policies are aimed at encouraging homeless people to seek housing, although the city itself does not have its own shelter. It directs people to one run by a religious organization that has limited space and imposes conditions that some homeless people object to.
This type of reasoning is just lies that people - both liberal and conservative - tell themselves and the media because it is somewhat unpalatable to say, "I want homeless people to go away, I don't care if they just end up somewhere else or die".
1. There aren't enough shelter beds even if you count the inappropriate ones. It is difficult to get people into a shelter even when they want to go. I know this from personal experience with assisting people who did want to go.
2. Many shelter beds are inappropriate because:
- Just a mat on the floor, so you get bad sleep and/or are vulnerable to attacks from others or from staff. This is particularly true if you are youth, marginalized, etc
- Must be separated from partner, child, pet, family to access a single bed
- May not allow people who are dealing with alcohol or drug addiction
- Probably don't allow pets, and yes, people are homeless with their pets
3. Many shelters are inappropriate for these other shelter-process reasons that I think need to be highlighted:
***Terrible precarity. You often can't register for a shelter bed until 7pm at night, and then you have to leave before 8am, so your whole day is completely organized around getting to and from the shelter and it is completely unpredictable. Having stayed at a place one night does not guarantee you a bed the next. How would YOU cope with this? You'd go nuts.
***Can't bring in your stuff. If you are unhoused, you may have a LOT of stuff - a tent, a tarp, blankets, clothes, some food, paperwork, meds, supplies, probably family memorabilia and small precious things. Most shelters won't let you bring more than two trash bags, which means that your choice is to get a PRECARIOUS TONIGHT-ONLY bed by throwing out all your critical supplies, or staying on the street. What if you toss out a tent today but can't get a bed tomorrow? You're fucked!
~~~
We need a lot of things, but one thing we really need is immediate, hotel-like frontline shelter where people can immediately check in to a room with a lockable door, store their stuff there and have, at the very least, a predictable term where they keep that room. That alone, tbqh, would probably enable thirty percent of street unhoused people to stabilize and find permanent non-shelter housing.
~~~~
And we need all of this regardless of whether unhoused people are addicted or sober, nice or mean, ill or well, with a history of petty crime or with none. Moral/daintily-middle-class barriers to shelter perpetuate homelessness.
~~
Also, what a lot of homeowners want now will be perpetrated on them or their kids as conditions worsen - jail or camps for the homeless sounds great to Mr. Regular Guy, maybe, but he won't like it when he or his children are rounded up and put in them as the economy and climate fall apart. But it will be too late then.
posted by Frowner at 9:50 AM on June 28 [95 favorites]
This type of reasoning is just lies that people - both liberal and conservative - tell themselves and the media because it is somewhat unpalatable to say, "I want homeless people to go away, I don't care if they just end up somewhere else or die".
1. There aren't enough shelter beds even if you count the inappropriate ones. It is difficult to get people into a shelter even when they want to go. I know this from personal experience with assisting people who did want to go.
2. Many shelter beds are inappropriate because:
- Just a mat on the floor, so you get bad sleep and/or are vulnerable to attacks from others or from staff. This is particularly true if you are youth, marginalized, etc
- Must be separated from partner, child, pet, family to access a single bed
- May not allow people who are dealing with alcohol or drug addiction
- Probably don't allow pets, and yes, people are homeless with their pets
3. Many shelters are inappropriate for these other shelter-process reasons that I think need to be highlighted:
***Terrible precarity. You often can't register for a shelter bed until 7pm at night, and then you have to leave before 8am, so your whole day is completely organized around getting to and from the shelter and it is completely unpredictable. Having stayed at a place one night does not guarantee you a bed the next. How would YOU cope with this? You'd go nuts.
***Can't bring in your stuff. If you are unhoused, you may have a LOT of stuff - a tent, a tarp, blankets, clothes, some food, paperwork, meds, supplies, probably family memorabilia and small precious things. Most shelters won't let you bring more than two trash bags, which means that your choice is to get a PRECARIOUS TONIGHT-ONLY bed by throwing out all your critical supplies, or staying on the street. What if you toss out a tent today but can't get a bed tomorrow? You're fucked!
~~~
We need a lot of things, but one thing we really need is immediate, hotel-like frontline shelter where people can immediately check in to a room with a lockable door, store their stuff there and have, at the very least, a predictable term where they keep that room. That alone, tbqh, would probably enable thirty percent of street unhoused people to stabilize and find permanent non-shelter housing.
~~~~
And we need all of this regardless of whether unhoused people are addicted or sober, nice or mean, ill or well, with a history of petty crime or with none. Moral/daintily-middle-class barriers to shelter perpetuate homelessness.
~~
Also, what a lot of homeowners want now will be perpetrated on them or their kids as conditions worsen - jail or camps for the homeless sounds great to Mr. Regular Guy, maybe, but he won't like it when he or his children are rounded up and put in them as the economy and climate fall apart. But it will be too late then.
posted by Frowner at 9:50 AM on June 28 [95 favorites]
Yeah, this one is bad. Pretty sure over in Portland Ted and Rene are getting ready for some kind of euphemistically titled crackdown, which will do no good but look vaguely like progress. And in places like Medford and Grants Pass it’ll be brutal. Camps in the woods during fire season in many parts of Oregon will result from this.
It will not change a thing, but they don’t seem to care about that. The idea is to convince the voting property owners and renters their concerns about the deterioration of urban life (a direct outcome of too expensive rents/property values) are being addressed.
posted by cybrcamper at 9:53 AM on June 28 [5 favorites]
It will not change a thing, but they don’t seem to care about that. The idea is to convince the voting property owners and renters their concerns about the deterioration of urban life (a direct outcome of too expensive rents/property values) are being addressed.
posted by cybrcamper at 9:53 AM on June 28 [5 favorites]
"The United States of America" is a failed brand. For many years now, it has reneged on its promises and intimations. I won't say when it started, because every time I seem to find a starting point it turns out to spring from an even earlier incident in the national history. USA aint even that old!
It was a scam from the start. America is an ongoing act of theft. To regard it otherwise is to ignore the bones in the earth you stand on. The people who were murdered, not to seize the land but just because they were in the way, were mostly not accorded the privilege of voting.
In the USA voting is a privilege and not an inalienable right. It is alienated from felons, from minors, from immigrants, from people who can't get or keep a mailing address or "valid" ID. Historically it has been alienated from those of the "wrong" gender or "race".
You don't get to vote for Supreme Court justices anyway. Your "elected" President (your vote didn't count in selecting this person) proposes, and your elected representative gets a vote in disposition.
Patriotism is a scam. The nation is not your father or your mother.
Please, please can we get past blaming each other for these meaningless fucking votes? What matters is what you do. Voting does not matter: it's expressing a preference to a machine designed to influence preferences and not conform to them.
If there is to be any hope, it is in real, actual people working together to get real, tangible things done. Corporations, nations and parties are not coming to save us. If anything they will try to prevent action outside of their purview. If and when you act directly to help those around you, expect these entities to deploy smear campaigns, economic warfare and policing against you.
Up until this morning I had hope that I might become housed. That hope is flying now from me. I don't expect to survive until November- but then I didn't expect last June to survive until last November, so there's that. I didn't get caught in the smoke last year, and I avoided the worst of the heat, and had a place to get warm over the winter. I can't depend on any of those things this year.
So, most likely I won't vote. I would have to travel to the city to acquire my ballot, and it's getting too dangerous to let people know I'm one of them... the homeless unpeople.
Again, voting doesn't matter. Elections matter in as much as they are scrutinized, but even then: 2000 was blatantly stolen and that Supreme Court picked a winner and said it was OK. Most everyone just went along. Those who did not were shushed and branded troublemakers. There are plenty of irregularities in the elections of 2004 2008 and 2016 as well. Election scrutiny has improved drastically over that time and more yet in recent years, but it's an arms race with exremely-well-funded (and mosly legal) election fuckery.
If you have to vote, vote. It's fine. It probably doesn't hurt. I will vote if I can.. What hurts is people voting, doing electoral politics, and then going "back to normal" the rest of the time. "Normal" is killing us.
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 10:08 AM on June 28 [37 favorites]
It was a scam from the start. America is an ongoing act of theft. To regard it otherwise is to ignore the bones in the earth you stand on. The people who were murdered, not to seize the land but just because they were in the way, were mostly not accorded the privilege of voting.
In the USA voting is a privilege and not an inalienable right. It is alienated from felons, from minors, from immigrants, from people who can't get or keep a mailing address or "valid" ID. Historically it has been alienated from those of the "wrong" gender or "race".
You don't get to vote for Supreme Court justices anyway. Your "elected" President (your vote didn't count in selecting this person) proposes, and your elected representative gets a vote in disposition.
Patriotism is a scam. The nation is not your father or your mother.
Please, please can we get past blaming each other for these meaningless fucking votes? What matters is what you do. Voting does not matter: it's expressing a preference to a machine designed to influence preferences and not conform to them.
If there is to be any hope, it is in real, actual people working together to get real, tangible things done. Corporations, nations and parties are not coming to save us. If anything they will try to prevent action outside of their purview. If and when you act directly to help those around you, expect these entities to deploy smear campaigns, economic warfare and policing against you.
Up until this morning I had hope that I might become housed. That hope is flying now from me. I don't expect to survive until November- but then I didn't expect last June to survive until last November, so there's that. I didn't get caught in the smoke last year, and I avoided the worst of the heat, and had a place to get warm over the winter. I can't depend on any of those things this year.
So, most likely I won't vote. I would have to travel to the city to acquire my ballot, and it's getting too dangerous to let people know I'm one of them... the homeless unpeople.
Again, voting doesn't matter. Elections matter in as much as they are scrutinized, but even then: 2000 was blatantly stolen and that Supreme Court picked a winner and said it was OK. Most everyone just went along. Those who did not were shushed and branded troublemakers. There are plenty of irregularities in the elections of 2004 2008 and 2016 as well. Election scrutiny has improved drastically over that time and more yet in recent years, but it's an arms race with exremely-well-funded (and mosly legal) election fuckery.
If you have to vote, vote. It's fine. It probably doesn't hurt. I will vote if I can.. What hurts is people voting, doing electoral politics, and then going "back to normal" the rest of the time. "Normal" is killing us.
posted by Rev. Irreverent Revenant at 10:08 AM on June 28 [37 favorites]
Also, as a random observation it really frosts me when I see people on Nextdoor or social media being like "I left my expensive object out on my lawn overnight and I left an expensive delivery on my front steps for eight hours and someone stole them and this is because of HOMELESSNESS". Like, I grew up in a very conventional suburb with very little crime in the eighties, and if you left an expensive object on your lawn overnight or left a valuable package in plain view of the street for hours and hours, someone would very likely steal it, because if enough people pass by and see a valuable object just lying around, one of them will want to take it. This is why you don't leave expensive objects just sitting around in areas where you get a lot of foot traffic.
People want to live in the city and have as much privacy and ability to leave shit on their lawn as if they lived on a large, isolated private property and then they blame various marginalized groups because they aren't getting the experience of owning their own private island.
posted by Frowner at 10:12 AM on June 28 [21 favorites]
People want to live in the city and have as much privacy and ability to leave shit on their lawn as if they lived on a large, isolated private property and then they blame various marginalized groups because they aren't getting the experience of owning their own private island.
posted by Frowner at 10:12 AM on June 28 [21 favorites]
Abolition is the only way forward.
posted by ob1quixote at 10:23 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 10:23 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]
Can I sleep in my pup tent in the backyard?
Probably not.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 10:57 AM on June 28 [1 favorite]
Probably not.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 10:57 AM on June 28 [1 favorite]
We need a lot of things, but one thing we really need is immediate, hotel-like frontline shelter...
Frowner, I flagged this comment as fantastic.
posted by joannemerriam at 11:03 AM on June 28 [12 favorites]
Frowner, I flagged this comment as fantastic.
posted by joannemerriam at 11:03 AM on June 28 [12 favorites]
My godbrother, my sister and my cousin were all homeless. My parents spent their meager retirement savings helping my sister while she fought for disability. Back in 2005. She killed herself after attaining housing and worried they were gonna kick her out for not being able to keep up the place as per all the lovely restrictions we place on people.
Godbrother fell asleep (probably drunk) in the cold a couple years ago, frostbit leg, amputated. He died a month or so later, sepsis I assume. He was immobile and couldn't get do things for himself, and his assistance was away.
Cousin was kicked out of the Walmart RV - told by my aunt's "community" that he wasn't allowed around.
He died that night of super cold weather in Oregon.
Between the debates, Chevron and this I just messaged my mom:
fuck you mom, fuck you grandchildren who follow your footsteps. Your love and naivete blind you as you stumble into a world of hate, while declaring "Jesus is coming back any day now"
Meanwhile the rest of us supposedly "beloved" creatures are made to rot and die. And you know this first hand and yet you still support these fucks. Evil. Pure evil. All in the name of LOVE. ONE MAN IN THE NAME OF LOVE.
(sorry to all the progressive Christians out there. I know some of you are good people and not all are fundy conservatives, so please don't take this as an attack on you. keep up the good fight and doing the right thing).
posted by symbioid at 11:23 AM on June 28 [26 favorites]
Godbrother fell asleep (probably drunk) in the cold a couple years ago, frostbit leg, amputated. He died a month or so later, sepsis I assume. He was immobile and couldn't get do things for himself, and his assistance was away.
Cousin was kicked out of the Walmart RV - told by my aunt's "community" that he wasn't allowed around.
He died that night of super cold weather in Oregon.
Between the debates, Chevron and this I just messaged my mom:
'Good, at least (godbrother) and (cousin) and (sister) are dead and won't have to suffer more of this bullcrap that your party loves. Hopefully all the homeless can just die so nobody has to look at their unsightly existence.The important thing is women go to jail for harming a zygote, more than anything else, and also nobody should be taxed more than the 10% that god demands.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-citys-homeless-camping-ban-cruel-unusual/story?id=111440736
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."'
fuck you mom, fuck you grandchildren who follow your footsteps. Your love and naivete blind you as you stumble into a world of hate, while declaring "Jesus is coming back any day now"
Meanwhile the rest of us supposedly "beloved" creatures are made to rot and die. And you know this first hand and yet you still support these fucks. Evil. Pure evil. All in the name of LOVE. ONE MAN IN THE NAME OF LOVE.
(sorry to all the progressive Christians out there. I know some of you are good people and not all are fundy conservatives, so please don't take this as an attack on you. keep up the good fight and doing the right thing).
posted by symbioid at 11:23 AM on June 28 [26 favorites]
The one government agency that bothered to call me back said they'd call again in two years to see if I still wanted to be on the waiting list. I don't even need all that much support to be pretty darn functional... But it doesn't exist, deliberately, maliciously and by design. So it goes. One day everything will be beautiful and not hurt.
posted by Jacen at 12:11 PM on June 28 [5 favorites]
posted by Jacen at 12:11 PM on June 28 [5 favorites]
People want to live in the city and have as much privacy and ability to leave shit on their lawn as if they lived on a large, isolated private property and then they blame various marginalized groups because they aren't getting the experience of owning their own private island.
I regret I have but only one favourite to give. This has been and is my experience of living in midsized city that saw a huge influx of Torontonians move in during lockdown and how they are absolutely furious that they didn't get a bucolic Mayberry. You'd think that folks who lived in Canada's largest city would be like, "damn, it really is bad EVERYWHERE; I had no idea" instead of "the FUCK you people got crime and homeless encampments?? THE FUCK"
posted by Kitteh at 12:27 PM on June 28 [8 favorites]
I regret I have but only one favourite to give. This has been and is my experience of living in midsized city that saw a huge influx of Torontonians move in during lockdown and how they are absolutely furious that they didn't get a bucolic Mayberry. You'd think that folks who lived in Canada's largest city would be like, "damn, it really is bad EVERYWHERE; I had no idea" instead of "the FUCK you people got crime and homeless encampments?? THE FUCK"
posted by Kitteh at 12:27 PM on June 28 [8 favorites]
I mean, I won't hand it to townies either; they are worse in that homelessness is supposed to be a big city problem, not an every city problem. Empathy is in infinitely short supply in whatever country you hang your hat in.
posted by Kitteh at 12:31 PM on June 28 [2 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 12:31 PM on June 28 [2 favorites]
All that vacant office space was going destroy the economy, now we can convert that space into coffin halls, penny sit ups and two penny hangovers. At last shackles put in place upon the land lord by the woke liberal mob have been lifted. Truly this is a great day for America.
posted by interogative mood at 12:38 PM on June 28 [1 favorite]
posted by interogative mood at 12:38 PM on June 28 [1 favorite]
Pretty sure over in Portland Ted and Rene are getting ready for some kind of euphemistically titled crackdown
They don't need euphemism anymore, the last few years here have really shown that people only have compassion for the homeless when they aren't actually visible.
posted by Dr. Twist at 12:44 PM on June 28 [4 favorites]
They don't need euphemism anymore, the last few years here have really shown that people only have compassion for the homeless when they aren't actually visible.
posted by Dr. Twist at 12:44 PM on June 28 [4 favorites]
Seattle's city attorney Ann Davison had the city submit an amicus in support of the SC taking this case as did a number of "progressive" cities including IIRC San Francisco. The reality is that even cities run by claimed "progressive" leaders do not have robust, effective policy plans to address housing and homelessness, but they do have lots of stable, well-off voters yelling at them about unhoused people. So they support increasingly punitive responses that don't work. The only hamper was a fig leaf of a requirement that shelter be offered and now that is also torn away. I expect Seattle's already aggressive sweep activities to ramp up. It's already the case that there's not enough shelter (much less suitable shelter as noted up thread) and being forced to move constantly, face police harassment and destruction/loss of one's possessions (including identification documents and medications!) does not make it easier for a person to stabilize themselves. But we'll keep doing it because too many housed people can't bear to see poverty directly or introspect and regulate their own discomfort.
posted by R343L at 1:01 PM on June 28 [11 favorites]
posted by R343L at 1:01 PM on June 28 [11 favorites]
SF Plans to Escalate Homeless Camp Sweeps (San Francisco Chronicle)
posted by box at 2:51 PM on June 28
posted by box at 2:51 PM on June 28
The reality is that even cities run by claimed "progressive" leaders do not have robust, effective policy plans to address housing and homelessness
More like, they might have an idea of what they can do, but the preposterous cost to the taxpayers makes it a non-starter. And before someone comes in with "just give them homes", try being the politician who says that to middle-class voters.
But more importantly, there's a whole tragedy of the commons thing going on, here. In my city (Atlanta), where the population of the city is only about 10% that of the whole metro area, the city's comparatively generous treatment of homeless people (and it's comparatively only, not actually generous) compared to the balkanized suburbs that are 90% of the population means that every suburb runs its homeless out of town and says "go downtown". So Atlanta proper has to support basically all the homeless in the metro area on only probably something like 15-20% of the tax base.
Same thing is going to happen for whichever city/metro in a region, or region in the country does: they're going to be inundated with homeless people, some of whom could indeed be stabilized and helped but many of whom cause a lot of problems. There's a structural disincentive for any region/politician to spend the vast sums of money on better care for the homeless. A national and tremendously expensive initiative to build huge amounts of modest apartments is the only real solution, and even if Dems had control of all the levers of government, that would be extremely difficult.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 3:02 PM on June 28 [7 favorites]
More like, they might have an idea of what they can do, but the preposterous cost to the taxpayers makes it a non-starter. And before someone comes in with "just give them homes", try being the politician who says that to middle-class voters.
But more importantly, there's a whole tragedy of the commons thing going on, here. In my city (Atlanta), where the population of the city is only about 10% that of the whole metro area, the city's comparatively generous treatment of homeless people (and it's comparatively only, not actually generous) compared to the balkanized suburbs that are 90% of the population means that every suburb runs its homeless out of town and says "go downtown". So Atlanta proper has to support basically all the homeless in the metro area on only probably something like 15-20% of the tax base.
Same thing is going to happen for whichever city/metro in a region, or region in the country does: they're going to be inundated with homeless people, some of whom could indeed be stabilized and helped but many of whom cause a lot of problems. There's a structural disincentive for any region/politician to spend the vast sums of money on better care for the homeless. A national and tremendously expensive initiative to build huge amounts of modest apartments is the only real solution, and even if Dems had control of all the levers of government, that would be extremely difficult.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 3:02 PM on June 28 [7 favorites]
I’ll never forget hearing Barbara Ehrenreich say the phrase ‘the criminalization of poverty’ at one of her book talks.
posted by bq at 3:30 PM on June 28 [11 favorites]
posted by bq at 3:30 PM on June 28 [11 favorites]
Obviously cities can't pay for all the housing themselves. But even when the state legislature manages to pass changes (funding or policy) to address housing scarcity, the cities fight tooth and nail to not change (or meet the letter of the law but not the spirit). A prime example being Seattle and outlying cities and towns utterly milquetoast plans to update their comprehensive plans which are supposed to plan for enough housing but don't. Or that most cities and towns in the state fought state legislation to have minimum zoning capacity and the bills keep getting watered down to tiny increases in narrow corridors.
posted by R343L at 3:38 PM on June 28 [6 favorites]
posted by R343L at 3:38 PM on June 28 [6 favorites]
I’ve worked with current and formerly unhoused people in both volunteer and professional capacities for a while now. I have always maintained that anyone who wants to criminalize existing outside or complain about why people won’t accept shelter beds needs to be willing to personally accept the conditions of whatever “perfectly good” shelter “those” people are turning down.
Would you like if if I crammed four bunk beds into your bedroom and filled them with unvetted strangers, jammed in so close to you that you run a real risk of getting scabies? Would you tolerate being patted down roughly by security guards every time you entered your front door? Would you like to be woken up early in the morning and kicked out of your bed to wander the streets all day? If you would not endure these conditions then please STFU about people turning down shelter. The only person I’d wish those conditions on is Samuel Alito.
posted by ActionPopulated at 7:56 PM on June 28 [20 favorites]
Would you like if if I crammed four bunk beds into your bedroom and filled them with unvetted strangers, jammed in so close to you that you run a real risk of getting scabies? Would you tolerate being patted down roughly by security guards every time you entered your front door? Would you like to be woken up early in the morning and kicked out of your bed to wander the streets all day? If you would not endure these conditions then please STFU about people turning down shelter. The only person I’d wish those conditions on is Samuel Alito.
posted by ActionPopulated at 7:56 PM on June 28 [20 favorites]
In October 2018, the Oregon Law Center filed the initial class action lawsuit on behalf of Debra Blake. Blake had lived in Grants Pass for almost 15 years, seven without a home. She didn’t qualify for a bed in the town’s only shelter, and there was no place she could legally rest outdoors. (By September 2019, Blake owed the town nearly $5K in fines).
In May 2021, Blake passed away at age 62.
Gloria Johnson and John Logan stepped in as class representatives during the appeals process: "While Ms. Johnson and Mr. Logan generally sleep in their vehicles, the court held, they could adequately represent the class, for sleeping in a vehicle can sometimes count as unlawful “‘camping’” under the relevant ordinances."
Grants Pass has a population of around 39,000, "about 600 of whom are estimated to experience homelessness on a given day."
There were 16,935 housing units in Grants Pass in 2021.
Of those units, 16,231 were occupied.
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:48 PM on June 28 [4 favorites]
In May 2021, Blake passed away at age 62.
Gloria Johnson and John Logan stepped in as class representatives during the appeals process: "While Ms. Johnson and Mr. Logan generally sleep in their vehicles, the court held, they could adequately represent the class, for sleeping in a vehicle can sometimes count as unlawful “‘camping’” under the relevant ordinances."
Grants Pass has a population of around 39,000, "about 600 of whom are estimated to experience homelessness on a given day."
There were 16,935 housing units in Grants Pass in 2021.
Of those units, 16,231 were occupied.
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:48 PM on June 28 [4 favorites]
A national and tremendously expensive initiative to build huge amounts of modest apartments is the only real solution,
This just isn’t true, though.
There are a lot of solutions, but they involve inconveniencing rich people, so legislators won’t do it. You know what would help house people? Kicking the legs out of the sleazy credit check system such that it is only allowed to be used by financial institutions, not by every fucking landlord who wants to know the financial history of their tenants. Creating laws that forbid landlords from requiring more income than the rent requires. Forbidding eviction discrimination for family members, such that if one person gets an apartment and then they want to move a family member in, they have to clear up that family members eviction in order to do so.
posted by corb at 1:22 AM on June 29 [17 favorites]
This just isn’t true, though.
There are a lot of solutions, but they involve inconveniencing rich people, so legislators won’t do it. You know what would help house people? Kicking the legs out of the sleazy credit check system such that it is only allowed to be used by financial institutions, not by every fucking landlord who wants to know the financial history of their tenants. Creating laws that forbid landlords from requiring more income than the rent requires. Forbidding eviction discrimination for family members, such that if one person gets an apartment and then they want to move a family member in, they have to clear up that family members eviction in order to do so.
posted by corb at 1:22 AM on June 29 [17 favorites]
Does anyone know if the fines given out by the municipality could lead to jail time and if the jail time could then lead to prison work camps? Because it would be horrifying if the Supreme Court now is saying that slavery is justifiable when the person is poor. Especially when the housing crisis is engineered by existing home owners to never allow housing supply expansion or housing demand reduction.
posted by DetriusXii at 5:28 AM on June 29 [4 favorites]
posted by DetriusXii at 5:28 AM on June 29 [4 favorites]
Yeah, there are lots of different ways I can think of to reduce homelessness - keeping people housed is one, so low-barrier rent assistance would help.
The fundamental problem is that we've been hacking away at every aspect of the social network for decades now, so where in the past someone could try different solutions until something worked, now they're just stuck. No meaningful welfare, section 8 and public housing so diminished as to be nonexistant, credit checks at the press of a button, background checks for every kind of work, work getting more and more far flung so you need a functional car, housing is more expensive so it's a lot harder to afford, eg, a three bedroom where Cousin George can get back on his feet.
The fact that house values have become this combination of God Allmighty and a way for the politicians to pacify the middle class means that no one is willing to do anything they think will reduce property values.
That fucking algorithm grift that they have now so landlords can collude to jack up rents and fees means that landlords figure they make more money renting half their apartments at a huge rate than renting most of their apartments at a lower rate, so there's no incentive to, like, have actual tenants - the landlord's dream is to rent one apartment for a million dollars while hoarding a hundred empty ones gathering dust.
We just, like, picked away at the social fabric until now it's one big hole with some threads around the edges, and we did this so the rich and the aspiring rich could grab more than their share, and so that no one would ever, ever have to do anything that made them uncomfortable or cost them money except of course for the already-poor, and now we're left with exactly what was predicted in the eighties, a shitty society where there's nothing for anyone except the super-rich and people are greedy and horrible all the time. There's a lot of ruin in a nation, but eventually you've worked through all of it and then you're fucked.
posted by Frowner at 6:26 AM on June 29 [15 favorites]
The fundamental problem is that we've been hacking away at every aspect of the social network for decades now, so where in the past someone could try different solutions until something worked, now they're just stuck. No meaningful welfare, section 8 and public housing so diminished as to be nonexistant, credit checks at the press of a button, background checks for every kind of work, work getting more and more far flung so you need a functional car, housing is more expensive so it's a lot harder to afford, eg, a three bedroom where Cousin George can get back on his feet.
The fact that house values have become this combination of God Allmighty and a way for the politicians to pacify the middle class means that no one is willing to do anything they think will reduce property values.
That fucking algorithm grift that they have now so landlords can collude to jack up rents and fees means that landlords figure they make more money renting half their apartments at a huge rate than renting most of their apartments at a lower rate, so there's no incentive to, like, have actual tenants - the landlord's dream is to rent one apartment for a million dollars while hoarding a hundred empty ones gathering dust.
We just, like, picked away at the social fabric until now it's one big hole with some threads around the edges, and we did this so the rich and the aspiring rich could grab more than their share, and so that no one would ever, ever have to do anything that made them uncomfortable or cost them money except of course for the already-poor, and now we're left with exactly what was predicted in the eighties, a shitty society where there's nothing for anyone except the super-rich and people are greedy and horrible all the time. There's a lot of ruin in a nation, but eventually you've worked through all of it and then you're fucked.
posted by Frowner at 6:26 AM on June 29 [15 favorites]
The fact that house values have become this combination of God Allmighty and a way for the politicians to pacify the middle class means that no one is willing to do anything they think will reduce property values.
This is a disagreement Shepherd and I have; I agree with you, Frowner. I'm sure you've seen as have I what happens when anyone tries to create affordable or transitional housing in a city. There is so much hue and cry about placing it in any neighbourhood that it ends up never getting built, or in a case in my city re: a vacated former nursing home, it never gets utilized. And thus property owners get to keep their values and wring their hands about the homeless "problem."
I can't find the CBC article now (I'll post it in here if I find it) that pretty much said, "If you are able to own a home, you're rich." Obv, not Scrooge McDuck rich, but you have the credit and income and ability to do something so many people are increasingly unable to do. My parents were so bad with money that we were always renters and I never expected to own a home myself, but I do. And honestly, I consider myself wealthier in that one regard these days.
posted by Kitteh at 8:12 AM on June 29 [2 favorites]
This is a disagreement Shepherd and I have; I agree with you, Frowner. I'm sure you've seen as have I what happens when anyone tries to create affordable or transitional housing in a city. There is so much hue and cry about placing it in any neighbourhood that it ends up never getting built, or in a case in my city re: a vacated former nursing home, it never gets utilized. And thus property owners get to keep their values and wring their hands about the homeless "problem."
I can't find the CBC article now (I'll post it in here if I find it) that pretty much said, "If you are able to own a home, you're rich." Obv, not Scrooge McDuck rich, but you have the credit and income and ability to do something so many people are increasingly unable to do. My parents were so bad with money that we were always renters and I never expected to own a home myself, but I do. And honestly, I consider myself wealthier in that one regard these days.
posted by Kitteh at 8:12 AM on June 29 [2 favorites]
There is so much hue and cry about placing it in any neighbourhood that it ends up never getting built, or in a case in my city re: a vacated former nursing home, it never gets utilized.
This totally happened in Atlanta. There was a vacated... I think it was a school, in a gentrifying neighborhood, where the city wanted to change it into a single-room, bathrooms down the hall kind of thing for people transitioning out of homelessness, and the neighborhood planning unit was like okay, but our condition for not opposing this is that there has to be a charter for it, that no heroin/opiate or meth users be tolerated. Nobody with a history of it, and a one-strike policy on eviction for use. They were really clear about it, too: like okay, we're fine with the kind of homeless people who have jobs and it's just their shite credit history that prevents them from finding housing, like a lot of people here in this thread have pointed out, but no dogs, no addicts, no users.
The city was like no way we're going to guarantee that, and y'all are a bunch of gentrifier racists and whatever -ists not wanting heroin or meth in your neighborhood is, and then it turned out the original non-gentrified residents of the neighborhood were even more staunchly opposed to the project, and then the whole neighborhood voted it down by some tremendous margin, and now those people with jobs are still living in tents under highway overpasses.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:33 AM on June 29 [2 favorites]
This totally happened in Atlanta. There was a vacated... I think it was a school, in a gentrifying neighborhood, where the city wanted to change it into a single-room, bathrooms down the hall kind of thing for people transitioning out of homelessness, and the neighborhood planning unit was like okay, but our condition for not opposing this is that there has to be a charter for it, that no heroin/opiate or meth users be tolerated. Nobody with a history of it, and a one-strike policy on eviction for use. They were really clear about it, too: like okay, we're fine with the kind of homeless people who have jobs and it's just their shite credit history that prevents them from finding housing, like a lot of people here in this thread have pointed out, but no dogs, no addicts, no users.
The city was like no way we're going to guarantee that, and y'all are a bunch of gentrifier racists and whatever -ists not wanting heroin or meth in your neighborhood is, and then it turned out the original non-gentrified residents of the neighborhood were even more staunchly opposed to the project, and then the whole neighborhood voted it down by some tremendous margin, and now those people with jobs are still living in tents under highway overpasses.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 8:33 AM on June 29 [2 favorites]
As someone who sits in on planning meetings for stuff in my neighbourhood, your liberal neighbours are suddenly a lot less liberal if it means their child has to see a poor on their street. I mean, I know for a lot of you that is no surprise, but sadly I was.
posted by Kitteh at 9:06 AM on June 29 [4 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 9:06 AM on June 29 [4 favorites]
>"If you are able to own a home, you're rich." Obv, not Scrooge McDuck rich, but you have the credit and income and ability to do something so many people are increasingly unable to do.
I know there's a general feeling that nobody can afford to buy a home anymore, but the US Census data seems to show a mostly steady homeownership rate, ranging between 60 and 70% of households as far back as the 80's. Currently we are at 65%. (looking at US census data from 2023) Is there other data showing that home ownership is decreasing?
posted by mrgoldenbrown at 9:59 AM on June 29 [3 favorites]
I know there's a general feeling that nobody can afford to buy a home anymore, but the US Census data seems to show a mostly steady homeownership rate, ranging between 60 and 70% of households as far back as the 80's. Currently we are at 65%. (looking at US census data from 2023) Is there other data showing that home ownership is decreasing?
posted by mrgoldenbrown at 9:59 AM on June 29 [3 favorites]
Grants Pass has a population of around 39,000, "about 600 of whom are estimated to experience homelessness on a given day."
There were 16,935 housing units in Grants Pass in 2021.
Of those units, 16,231 were occupied.
What you seem to be getting at is an idea that seems to be passed around a lot as a solution: if there are (barely) enough vacant houses, why not just put homeless people in those vacant houses? It seems like a simple way to fix things. Unfortunately, it's also got a lot of problems.
600 vacant houses out of 17,000 is a vacancy rate of about 3%. That's relatively high compared to a lot of cities; NYC, for one, has hovered around 1% for the last few years. So Grant's Pass could afford to have a lower vacancy rate... But you probably wouldn't want them to.
It's useful to have a relatively high vacancy rate for a few reasons. First, it pressures property owners to lower prices. And yes, this generally works, even with shit like RealPage . Look at NYC in the early days of COVID, when a minor exodus lead to landlords quickly slashing prices. But that's not the only benefit. It makes it logistically much easier for people to move when there are plenty of vacant places to be found. That way, you don't end up with a musical chairs situation, where there aren't enough apartments for everyone who wants one. (I know this is also a problem with the current situation, but I'm getting to that.)
Most of those vacant dwellings don't stay vacant for long. A large percentage of those vacancies are just vacant for a few months, or less, as one person moves in and another moves out. Sometimes they're being cleaned out and prepped for a new person to move in. It would be logistically tricky adding in new temporary renters to the mix, and that would be the case even if the homeless were perfect tenants... Which they're often very much not.
A large minority of homeless people have substance abuse issues or mental illness. They're also much more likely than the general population to be violent criminals. Many of these people aren't capable of maintaining a house on their own; some of them will be very destructive to their surroundings. Property owners, especially ones preparing for a new sale or tenant, aren't keen on having potentially dangerous or destructive people, who are presumably unvetted, running amok unsupervised in their properties. Neighbors wouldn't be very happy with that either.
So what are the better solutions? One of them is putting the unhoused in hotels or motels. This is a similar solution, but it has a lot of advantages. It's way harder to have any kind of oversight when the homeless are spread out across literally hundreds of random houses and apartments all over town. Putting them in one place makes it easier to clean and check in on the places, give them necessary services and care, and police any incidents that might be downwind of substance and mental illness issues. That's definitely an improvement upon shuffling them around whatever apartments happen to be vacant for a month or two before a new guy moves in.
Even the hotel idea is a bit of a stopgap. It would be better building long-term affordable and supportive housing, not to mention making it easier for developers to build apartments, and create more housing supply... But that seems to be damn near impossible, and a stopgap is a lot better than nothing.
posted by Green Winnebago at 2:07 PM on June 29 [2 favorites]
There were 16,935 housing units in Grants Pass in 2021.
Of those units, 16,231 were occupied.
What you seem to be getting at is an idea that seems to be passed around a lot as a solution: if there are (barely) enough vacant houses, why not just put homeless people in those vacant houses? It seems like a simple way to fix things. Unfortunately, it's also got a lot of problems.
600 vacant houses out of 17,000 is a vacancy rate of about 3%. That's relatively high compared to a lot of cities; NYC, for one, has hovered around 1% for the last few years. So Grant's Pass could afford to have a lower vacancy rate... But you probably wouldn't want them to.
It's useful to have a relatively high vacancy rate for a few reasons. First, it pressures property owners to lower prices. And yes, this generally works, even with shit like RealPage . Look at NYC in the early days of COVID, when a minor exodus lead to landlords quickly slashing prices. But that's not the only benefit. It makes it logistically much easier for people to move when there are plenty of vacant places to be found. That way, you don't end up with a musical chairs situation, where there aren't enough apartments for everyone who wants one. (I know this is also a problem with the current situation, but I'm getting to that.)
Most of those vacant dwellings don't stay vacant for long. A large percentage of those vacancies are just vacant for a few months, or less, as one person moves in and another moves out. Sometimes they're being cleaned out and prepped for a new person to move in. It would be logistically tricky adding in new temporary renters to the mix, and that would be the case even if the homeless were perfect tenants... Which they're often very much not.
A large minority of homeless people have substance abuse issues or mental illness. They're also much more likely than the general population to be violent criminals. Many of these people aren't capable of maintaining a house on their own; some of them will be very destructive to their surroundings. Property owners, especially ones preparing for a new sale or tenant, aren't keen on having potentially dangerous or destructive people, who are presumably unvetted, running amok unsupervised in their properties. Neighbors wouldn't be very happy with that either.
So what are the better solutions? One of them is putting the unhoused in hotels or motels. This is a similar solution, but it has a lot of advantages. It's way harder to have any kind of oversight when the homeless are spread out across literally hundreds of random houses and apartments all over town. Putting them in one place makes it easier to clean and check in on the places, give them necessary services and care, and police any incidents that might be downwind of substance and mental illness issues. That's definitely an improvement upon shuffling them around whatever apartments happen to be vacant for a month or two before a new guy moves in.
Even the hotel idea is a bit of a stopgap. It would be better building long-term affordable and supportive housing, not to mention making it easier for developers to build apartments, and create more housing supply... But that seems to be damn near impossible, and a stopgap is a lot better than nothing.
posted by Green Winnebago at 2:07 PM on June 29 [2 favorites]
What you seem to be getting at is an idea that seems to be passed around a lot as a solution: if there are (barely) enough vacant houses, why not just put homeless people in those vacant houses? It seems like a simple way to fix things. Unfortunately, it's also got a lot of problems.
That's a lot of words for basically I want to help but not in my backyard, please.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 2:18 PM on June 29 [1 favorite]
That's a lot of words for basically I want to help but not in my backyard, please.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 2:18 PM on June 29 [1 favorite]
It's a lot of words for "it's not a very good idea." Just putting them in random houses is the kind of snappy, populist, solution that seems brilliant and obvious until you think about it for five minutes. It's the left-wing equivalent of "why don't we just build a giant border wall?" It's a sub-par solution, and that's if you can get homeowners to agree to letting homeless people live in their temporarily vacant properties, which is an uphill battle on its own. It also doesn't really fix the core issue of insufficient housing, unless there's an insanely high vacancy rate to begin with.
I'm not a NIMBY. The government should fund and build affordable housing. They should also let companies easily build market-rate apartments. If they build it in my backyard, so be it. But don't force random property owners to allow a bunch of random people to live unsupervised in their buildings, without any background checks or oversight. That's a bad way of fixing the problem, and a great way to turn potential allies into reactionaries.
posted by Green Winnebago at 4:42 PM on June 29 [3 favorites]
I'm not a NIMBY. The government should fund and build affordable housing. They should also let companies easily build market-rate apartments. If they build it in my backyard, so be it. But don't force random property owners to allow a bunch of random people to live unsupervised in their buildings, without any background checks or oversight. That's a bad way of fixing the problem, and a great way to turn potential allies into reactionaries.
posted by Green Winnebago at 4:42 PM on June 29 [3 favorites]
‘Terrifying and dystopian’: the dark realities of the supreme court’s homelessness decision......
Sara Rankin, a law professor cited in Sotomayor’s dissent in the Oregon case, warns more cities will seek to banish the unhoused
posted by lalochezia at 4:53 PM on June 29
Just putting them in random houses
No one said that.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:01 PM on June 29 [1 favorite]
No one said that.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:01 PM on June 29 [1 favorite]
When people compare the amount of vacant houses to the amount of homeless people it is usually more of a mantra than an even vaguely fleshed out policy proposal that discloses what houses owned by who would be eligible.
posted by Selena777 at 5:11 PM on June 29
posted by Selena777 at 5:11 PM on June 29
I'm sorry if that's not what they meant, I may have been a little quick to jump the gun. I've seen plenty of NIMBY's on Twitter seriously argue that we can fix the housing crisis purely by putting homeless people in random vacant houses.
A lot of times they quote nationwide vacancy rates, which has some especially ridiculous implications. A lot of cities with the most homelessness have very low vacancy rates, so a lot of the homeless people would have to be sent to the kinds of places that tend to have disproportionately high vacancy rates. Unfortunately for them, the places with the highest vacancy rates tend to be remote, declining towns with a lot of derelict buildings, and little access to the kinds of services that long-term homeless people tend to need. Imagine being a homeless person who's relatively comfortable in San Francisco, jettisoned off to a rotting hovel in a half-abandoned coal mining town in Appalachia. That might technically reduce the homeless rates, but it's about the worst possible solution... and yet people bring it up, in all seriousness, over and over again.
posted by Green Winnebago at 5:41 PM on June 29 [2 favorites]
A lot of times they quote nationwide vacancy rates, which has some especially ridiculous implications. A lot of cities with the most homelessness have very low vacancy rates, so a lot of the homeless people would have to be sent to the kinds of places that tend to have disproportionately high vacancy rates. Unfortunately for them, the places with the highest vacancy rates tend to be remote, declining towns with a lot of derelict buildings, and little access to the kinds of services that long-term homeless people tend to need. Imagine being a homeless person who's relatively comfortable in San Francisco, jettisoned off to a rotting hovel in a half-abandoned coal mining town in Appalachia. That might technically reduce the homeless rates, but it's about the worst possible solution... and yet people bring it up, in all seriousness, over and over again.
posted by Green Winnebago at 5:41 PM on June 29 [2 favorites]
“Ruling on homelessness raises the risks for domestic violence survivors, experts say,” Jennifer Gerson, The 19th, 28 June 2024
Cf. “Public Officials and a ‘Private’ Matter: Attitudes and Policies in the County Sheriff Office Regarding Violence Against Women*,” Emily M. Farris and Mirya R. Holman, Social Science Quarterly, Volume 96, Issue 4, December 2015
posted by ob1quixote at 7:05 PM on June 29
Cf. “Public Officials and a ‘Private’ Matter: Attitudes and Policies in the County Sheriff Office Regarding Violence Against Women*,” Emily M. Farris and Mirya R. Holman, Social Science Quarterly, Volume 96, Issue 4, December 2015
posted by ob1quixote at 7:05 PM on June 29
The entire Supreme Court needs to spend a good couple of years unhoused. And without any of the usual network and resources they usually have ample access to - particularly those of the billionaire variety.
At the end of that, if they have managed to survive and after they have extricated themselves from jail and all, they are welcome to resume their cushy lifetime appointments of deciding everything for all the rest of us.
posted by flug at 8:23 PM on June 29 [4 favorites]
At the end of that, if they have managed to survive and after they have extricated themselves from jail and all, they are welcome to resume their cushy lifetime appointments of deciding everything for all the rest of us.
posted by flug at 8:23 PM on June 29 [4 favorites]
« Older The End of the Administrative State | 21st-century mosque design Newer »
posted by girandole at 8:42 AM on June 28 [4 favorites]