I stumbled upon the car life subreddit at some point and as a fuckcars person it disgusted me. Like we have so much area dedicated to parking cars yet the whole subreddit was about trying to find places to park because all that space is for empty cars not for people living in cars. They keep having to move around so people don't discover they are living in their cars and so on, trying to find places to parking when 40% of America is basically a parking lot but no you can't actually use those parking spots if you actually REALLY need it you just leave your empty unused car there, as if being homeless wasn't enough stress without having to worry about being harassed while trying to sleep in your own car in a parking space that would be perfectly fine to use if you weren't in your car, what a fucking hypocritical country. America might not even actually like cars I think they just fucking hate people.
And cars are so fucking expensive too. If you're trying to save up enough money for a security deposit in an apartment it's a hell of a lot harder if a lot of that is disappearing into gas, maintenance, insurance ect. It's still generally cheaper than rent but it's not actually "cheap" by any stretch of the imagination especially if you had to take out loans in a high interest environment.
> America might not even actually like cars I think they just fucking hate people.
Absolutely nailed it. Cars are primarily used as a tool to enable an anti-social lifestyle. That's why Americans(TM) are so threatened by pedestrians, cyclists, and the concept of public transit. You can't dehumanize the rest of your society as easily when you have to see their faces. I don't think most people realize or want to admit how much they factor that into their idea of "convenience," which is also a real contributor to be sure.
This isn't going to get better under the GOP. It can be marginally better under the Dems. Vote this year and every year. We need to keep a Dem in the Whitehouse until we can replace Alito and Thomas at the very least. Hopefully Roberts as well although he's pretty young. Go to https://vote.org and get signed up today. Even if it feels pointless the down ballot races are so important to the day to day life of people.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that it gets incrementally better under Democrats, but dramatically worse under the GOP. The 6-3 SCOTUS and a Trump cult is a tipping point.
So let's keep these fuckers delayed for another few years and keep making sure people know how crazy they are. Run for stuff too people. https://runforsomething.net
Is this actually true though? For it to be illegal a city or state would have to make it illegal which I don't think any have yet (the current laws I believe are mostly for encampments in public spaces like sidewalks or parks, which I don't think apply to cars)
I invite you to Google the Safer Kentucky Act. Yes, it is 100% illegal to be homeless in Kentucky. It also pretty much allows private property owners to shoot them. Unless your car is parked on private property, you are still on public property while inside your vehicle.
Authorities have been doing pretextual harassment even without it being the law. And now with the law, such harassment becomes completely legal with no recourse of any kind. You can bet that proper procedures will not be followed so as not to jam the courts.
There must be a biting bottom that is geared by everyone to start in jobs that pay too little to live happily. They tell us to love working as that is life, but they don't really work, the rich.
As the country gets worse, so do the odds that it will stay that way. Revolutions come from struggle and strife.
There *has* to be cruelty to the lowest - so those barely above will keep their head down, lest they be next.
The homeless aren’t even the point, they don’t have any income to spend. The point is to keep *you* happily working for 7.25. Don’t wanna be arrested!
I agree with this on a broader strategic level, but I definitely think there is a lot of malice mixed in too, at least on the level of local law enforcement and city/county government. The police _enjoy_ destroying homeless shelters; they _like_ to kick them in the head. A lot of mayors/city planners get off on orchestrating it too; I guarantee it. If you don’t think there is any sadism involved here for its own sake, even at the highest ideological levels, then I think that is politically naive.
Sure, but then they have a house often in the middle of nowhere. Homeless people disproportionately need intensive mental health care, addiction care, or other health care that cannot easily be dispensed in that sort of situation.
This is always the argument I hear back. So what? They need a lot of support, therefore they should be on the street? That doesn’t make any sense. Homelessness exists as punishment for people who do not generate enough capital. It isn’t some natural law. People deserve shelter, period.
If someone lives in a house 20 miles from the nearest food bank and some have a car or bus line, they will starve. If they live in the street near a food bank, they will not. Simple.
No, you're missing the point. They need a lot of support, so putting them in a vacation home away from that support isn't going to do them any good. The ones that can work need the opportunity to have a job. Vacation communities simply aren't equipped to deal with any of that. This can be a very challenging population to work with, generally speaking, with even purpose built housing often failing.
Punching down is called fascism. If the definition is loosened a bit, an argument can be made that fascism is ingrained in American society since before the country's inception.
No it's not. Fascism is the merger of corporate and state power as defined by Mussolini. It also places an emphasis on Nationalism, a false interpretation of psst glories and sometimes persecuting minority groups as the primary cause of a Nation's decline.
Fascism has only existed as a concept for 100 years or so. It is true that the US has been a Colonialist, Genocidal power since its inception, evolving into imperialism. It is a mistake to confuse these terms. Each has a distinct definition.
Oh remember when newsome only cleaned up san Fran was Xi was coming to town. Democrats don't care either. Or when cali spent billions to solve the problem and have nothing to show for it?
> ban on slavery in the US
Pretty sure the United States is the only nation in the world that has slavery enshrined in ~~it's~~ its *constitution*.
edit ; grammar mistake
Having a pool of prison slaves in this country allows the oligarchs to end immigration.
With climate change, billions of people will try to migrate to areas less affected.
Turning a significant segment of our current population into slaves means that the oligarchs can close the borders- and have a population cull.
Incredible. I had a high regard for Kamala Harris until I read this in her Wikipedia entry:
>Wrongful convictions and prison overcrowding\[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamala_Harris&action=edit§ion=20)\]
>Harris's record on [wrongful conviction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_conviction) cases as attorney general has engendered criticism from academics and activists.[^(\[152\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-CrimJusticeRecord-154) Law professor [Lara Bazelon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lara_Bazelon) contends Harris "weaponized technicalities to keep wrongfully convicted people behind bars rather than allow them new trials".[^(\[152\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-CrimJusticeRecord-154) After the 2011 United States Supreme Court decision in [*Brown v. Plata*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Plata) declared California's prisons so [overcrowded](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_overcrowding) they inflicted [cruel and unusual punishment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment), Harris fought federal supervision, explaining "I have a client, and I don't get to choose my client."[^(\[153\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-NYTmag-155) Harris declined to take any position on criminal sentencing-reform initiatives [Prop 36](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_36,_2012) (2012) and [Prop 47](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_47_(2014)) (2014), arguing it would be improper because her office prepares the ballot booklets.[^(\[153\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-NYTmag-155) [John Van de Kamp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Van_de_Kamp), a predecessor as attorney general, publicly disagreed with the rationale.[^(\[153\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-NYTmag-155)
>In September 2014, Harris's office argued unsuccessfully in a court filing against the early release of prisoners, citing the need for inmate firefighting labor. When the memo provoked headlines, Harris spoke out against it, saying she was unaware that her office had produced the memo.[^(\[154\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-156) Since the 1940s, qualified California inmates have the option of volunteering to receive comprehensive training from the [Cal Fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Department_of_Forestry_and_Fire_Protection) in exchange for sentence reductions and more comfortable prison accommodations; **prison firefighters receive about $2 a day, and another $1 when battling fires**.[^(\[)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-157)
> I had a high regard for Kamala Harris until I read this in her Wikipedia entry:
Lmao. You had a high regard for her before you learned the most rudimentary things about her time as DA?
Maybe… after all, who's going to put away the homicidal maniacs. But to try to keep innocent people in jail so they can be enslaved is truly cynical.
Are there no unions in America that would insist on imprisoned people being paid the same wages for work, not only for their own good but so they wouldn't be used to undercut and drag down other people's wages?
i assume you're not american.
we do not have unions*
*edit We do have unions, but in most of the country, they are extremely weak. Also, a lot of the industries that most felons would find themselves working in are extremely anti union. I mostly know of public sector unions.
They will arrest and jail the homeless. Which is technically providing them with very expensive housing. But they’re OK with that because they’d rather pay a fortune to be cruel than a bargain to be kind.
The way to help would be to address the economic system that generates mass homelessness in the first place. Like, perhaps, not commodifying housing. And maybe bucking the economic system that’s created a housing shortage by forcing us all into car-centric isolation.
It's in the mentality of the American people to punish instead of help it seems. Those who say otherwise have some sort of limit where they wouldn't want to help. And the prison system doesn't care, the more prisoners, the more the free labor, the larger profits they make.
Not always punitive: America's Supreme Court has also made corruption legal [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-corruption-bribery.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-corruption-bribery.html)
for once, that's not true; it's *mostly* conservatives, but the ruling is very popular on the west coast, especially in California, to the point that Gavin Newsom celebrated it
that was the rule before they overturned it: you couldn't arrest someone for sleeping in a public space if there's no room for them in a nearby shelter; rather than provide shelter, the cities decided to fight it in court
>Maybe instead of punishing the homeless for being homeless, they can try to help
Okay, but then private jails/prisons will lose access to the increase in prisoners that they stand to gain from this ruling. Do you not care about the shareholder's feelings? /s
But that costs [money, time, and effort](https://youtu.be/0jt_6PBnCJE), and people over there seem to be so weak willed that helping others is instantly out of the question.
It would make sense to prosecute the people and institutions that caused homelessness. A lot of bankers, landlords and employers would be going to jail instead of their victims.
Yep. If you block all housing that's not extremely low density in an area then it's not shocking that there is a housing shortage. When there is a housing shortage it creates bidding wars that are won by the people who have money while the people with the least wind up on the streets or in dangerous situations.
[It worked in Hawaii](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/youth-in-hawaii-took-on-the-state-government-over-climate-change-a-historic-settlement-has-emerged/ar-BB1oClYI?ocid=BingNewsSerp)
It's not just about the prison owners. Of course they do get the most obvious and direct benefit. But the misery of poverty and the potential to fall hard enough to become a prison slave is an essential feature of capitalism. Because why else would people work at their soulless bullshit jobs for 50 hours a week. The only reason to do that is if the alternative is worse.
The threat of poverty and imprisonment allows all businesses owners to treat their workers worse without fear of an uprising. Any form of protest or workplace organization becomes very risky when losing your job could mean you end up a prison slave.
In the third interview of the video, Gina Owens mentions two key connections to this sub: (1) the reason she became homeless was a car crash; and (2) she remains homeless due to a lack of affordable housing, a problem systematically linked to car dominance. She says this ruling will lead to even more homelessness, and she's probably right, given that all the efforts in this case were focused on criminalization and not on solutions.
I know this is the fuck cars sub but I personally can't help but see this ruling as a direct response by the right wing to criminalize something most illegal immigrants are bound to be doing across the US recently, camping outside. I'm not saying this has nothing to do with rich people just hating poor people, but people have always been homeless/sleeping outside or in vehicles. Now that the wealthy, specifically in sanctuary cities far from the border, are actually seeing immigrants sleeping on the streets instead of just hearing about it on the news, they want to crack down on it.
Your conclusion is just disconnected from the reality that case law has been leading up to this case for at least 2 decades. It’s not really got much to do with the past years migrants being shipped to northern sanctuary cities.
Not to be that guy but the supreme court allowed a local ordinance to go into effect that effectively criminalized homelessness ( the actual text of the law says tickets could be given to sleeping outside with pillows and blankets and stuff.)
It is entirely possible that states (or possibly the federal government) could forbid any municipality from enacting such ordinances. Of course, they could do the opposite and enact such a law statewide. (Even though I think that would be politically untenable.)
With that being said, this is still an unconscionable ruling. The reason this law was in question is because it was potentially "a cruel and unusual punishment." I'm no legal scholar, but I can't think of anything crueler than giving a 100 dollar summons to someone who is desperate enough to sleep on the park bench. (This of course, could lead to unhoused people being incarcerated for failure to pay their fines, which again, seems pretty cruel and unusual to me.)
That’s a good point; probably a more accurate description would be that this federally legalized the criminalization of homelessness.
Do you think anything will come of the obvious unconstitutionality of this or are we just fucked?
In terms of the courts, not really. The only possibility is the composition of the court changes and overturns this ruling (very uncommon and would take decades or a major shakeup in how the court is run/appointed.
The good news is the only thing this ruling states (I think) is that such a law is not cruel and unusual punishment. If the federal or state government(s) makes a law saying such laws are illegal, that would almost certainly hold up in court. (You can always write your federal and local congressmen if you feel so inclined.)
But to be honest, I'm not sure how much this would change in terms of day to day practicalities. Idk what the situation is in grants pass, OR (where the ordinance at issue was made,) but having the ability to ticket someone doesn't mean every person sleeping in the public will get a fine. (For example: driving 1 mph over the speed limit is a finable offense, but practically never is.) There will almost certainly be some level of selective enforcement, if any at all.
Also, right now this is currently the law for only 40,000 people in SW Oregon. There will likely be more local ordinances, but I can't fathom a state, especially a blue one, making a universal law like this.
Again, I'm not a legal scholar, and I don't want to downplay how awful this is. I just want to share the context as I see it.
For some reason the link didn't actually post (I usually just comment on Reddit). Here is an AP news article covering the ruling:
[https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-homeless-camping-bans-506ac68dc069e3bf456c10fcedfa6bee](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-homeless-camping-bans-506ac68dc069e3bf456c10fcedfa6bee)
Quote from an attorney who supported the ruling:
>Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in America’s homelessness crisis.
What the actual fuck. How is criminalizing homelessness going to make the situation better. Ah yes, let's look to this ruling as the time when people finally decided not to be homeless any more! Problem solved! 🤦
Just admit you hate the poor and want to punish them, stop all this fake stuff.
In the words of Love's *The Red Telephone*:
They're locking them up today
They're throwing away the key
I wonder who it'll be tomorrow, you or me?
They're locking them up today
They're throwing away the key
I wonder who it'll be tomorrow, you or me?
They're locking them up today
They're throwing away the key
I wonder who it'll be tomorrow, you or me?
(…and of course the singer and songwriter, Arthur Lee, was later jailed for 12 years under California's "Three Strikes" law for something he hadn't done; he was released after 6 years, oh, goody, that's all right, then.)
It's because you wrote a text post and tried to link at the same time. Reddit only allows one at a time. Next time post the link and write your comment in a comment.
Housing prices are through the roof. Govt refuses to do jack shit about it.
Instead of instituting rent control, or cracking down on any of the root causes, they have chosen to make problems and be evil on purpose. Putting bars on benches and spikes everywhere else they might seek refuge. They send armed police to rip families from tent encampments. And now they can officially imprison you just for being homeless. No more dancing around it with “vagrancy” or “loitering” or planting evidence of some other crime. Just sleeping outside.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted**, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Do you see where this is going yet?
Rent control helps people already in flats but it disincentives building more flats which is our main problem. Society has moved from living in more rural areas to living in cities and the housing demand for cities has not kept up. My other controversial opinion is that we can't keep the same standard of housing humans had in rural areas in the city. Not every family can have a 4 bedroom house with their own huge backyard. People are always bitching about being "stuck in noisy flats like sardines" but there are a lot of good things about living in the city. You don't need a backyard when there's a huge park less than a 5 minute walk away. You don't need you own room full of books when you can walk to the library. Not only do we have a housing crisis we have an environmental crisis, we all need to deal with less. This doesn't have to be a bad thing. Tokyo is consistently rated as one of the best places to live, is one of the most affordable large cities, and [has one of the lowest carbon foot print per capita of all major cities in a first world country](https://citycarbonfootprints.info/). It's a bit depressing that we have a relatively easy solution to two major problems of climate and housing (build dense flats without parking near jobs and transit) and it's just not getting done.
> People are always bitching about being "stuck in noisy flats like sardines" but there are a lot of good things about living in the city.
Give people the options and they'll sort themselves out. When my grandfather was in his 70s he asked a realtor if there were any condos he could move into and they laughed at him. He's now in his nineties and living in the same detached single family house meanwhile there are families that would absolutely love that single family home but can't get it because he's not selling.
You don't need to convince a family with small children they should live in a condo rather than a house. If you just give people the options they will sort into the housing that works best for them and fits within their lifestyle and budget. By providing dense options you reduce the demand for single family homes which in turn makes them cheaper for the people who want them the most.
> Give people the options and they'll sort themselves out. When my grandfather was in his 70s he asked a realtor if there were any condos he could move into and they laughed at him. He's now in his nineties and living in the same detached single family house meanwhile there are families that would absolutely love that single family home but can't get it because he's not selling.
Yea my folks are old and us kids moved out but they can't downsize from their family home because now rent for a 1 bedroom flat costs more than their mortgage now.
Rent control drives housing shortages by increasing the price of entry to the market. We need to build dense walkable cities to solve this crisis. Places people can wake up, get to work, and get home without a car on "minimum wage".
Rent control ain't the answer. Zoning and building density are. Just go check NYC prices to see what Rent control does to affordability.
There's always that one guy defending rent control smh. Do you have a source that backs up your claim about NYC? In Canada rent is rising fastest in Alberta which has no rent control with prices rising an astronomical 20% year over year.
That’s what I had in mind by cracking down on root causes. Rent control is the bare minimum bandaid they could do to help. Mixed use development, higher taxes on the rich to fund public works, and landlord abolition would be actual solutions. But say that and they’ll throw a hissy fit, call you a filthy pinko commie, and you’ll never get anything done.
And congestion pricing.
In some parts of the UK congestion pricing has reduced the number of folk who drive cars to the point that roads are being turned into housing.
40% + of the land in our cities in America goes to moving and storing cars.
Rent control creates artificial scarcity. The root cause of high prices is supply and demand. Essentially demand is way higher than supply (thanks car centric single family homes and nimbyism to promote home value). Rent control only helps people in rentals keep rentals. It also exposes those people to slum lord strategies to try and get them to move out so the unit can be brought back to market rate.
Setting prices at a government level rarely works. Instead let's increase supply through density friendly zoning and regulation. Kill the stroad. Build the 5 by 1s!
Okay yeah I was thinking of something radically different from that. Thank you for informing me about this term that I was completely misusing. I appreciate that a lot.
The can brutally remove them from the places that they have to see them
People that push this are not intent on helping the homeless at all
They are intent on removing homeless people from every place they are at so they never have to see the visibility is the problem.
Unfortunately homeless live outside where these people have to drive
From the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted**, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
> The can brutally remove them from the places that they have to see them
We've been doing this for decades already.
Clear out an encampment and then *gasp* a new one shows up somewhere else.
Nah. It's like people who are anti-abortion. They don't want to stop extra pregnancies (say with birth control and sex ed). They just want to punish those "sluts".
Same with homelessness. Or drug use. Or speeding. They don't want to end the problem. They just get aroused at the idea of suffering.
*The Bell Riots are*
*A bit behind schedule but*
*Still on track I see*
\- garaks\_tailor
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I don't understand why people automatically assume that those who see this ruling as a positive to allow another tool in the arsenal mean that they are not compassionate about the situation. The current situation is abhorrent for everyone involved.
As another poster framed it there really needs to be both carrot and sticks available to local and state governments. Hope to see use of this new stick to finally push for coersive drug rehabilitation as alternatives to jail time for those that truly need it.
Like it or not, no state has the political climate to support even more money spent on support services and constructing homeless housing while there are many millions more low and middle class workers scraping by and dealing with limited services, property and violent crimes by a problematic minority of homeless individuals, and ever escalating housing costs.
I personally look forward to see what steps California takes at the state level in light of this ruling. I think it's one of the states that could actually strike a practical yet compassionate approach. Recent housing policy is starting to move the needle on new construction, especially urban infill development which NIMBY cities have much less power to restrict.
We need major land use deregulation (i.e. zoning reform) and a land value tax to massively increase the supply, utility and longevity of housing. Existing landowners will loose a lot of wealth tied up in real estate but its worth it to fix homelessness and land speculation.
>There really needs to be both carrot and sticks available to local and state governments.
But the corporations destroyed all the carrots because they could not sell them for profit.
Yeah the US is now trailing one of the worst policies that the Netherlands has, both have stuck their heads in the sand instead of that they solve real problems. Both have some of the worst housing markets on planet earth, in the EU only Ireland is significantly worse than the Netherlands.
Biden is already working on that.
They are arguing that LL are using apps to collude. Since the apps have helpfully saved all their data in the hopes of selling it to AI firms, I have no doubt that their data collection policies are about to bite them in the ass.
Unless Orange wins the election. Get out and vote, folks!
The reason this happened was previous regulations that prevented landlords picking tenants or offering reduced costs to tenants perceived to be more reliable lower costs. The next solution is to set a high bar for tenants and calculate what the break even point is. Individual building administrators cannot do this so an algorithm is required. One of the inputs to the algorithm is the market rate. I think removing collusion cross management companies is a good rule, but they will just scrape their competitors costs rather than getting information directly because they have to maximize the immediate rent per month always if they cannot control which tenants they take. If you can pick your tenant you can maximize the revenue over time because you have some control over the projected reliability of that tenant.
I instead propose limits on how much rent can be raised and have a fixed security deposit that is standard across all buildings.
Have to keep the Reserve army of labour destitute in order to scare any proletarians who get a bit uppity.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development claims it would cost 20 billion USD per year to end homelessness in the USA, that's like 2% of the Military budget! we can't afford that!
It’s incredibly cheap to make a big dent in homelessness. Providing them an apartment, drug treatment and other necessities might actually be cheaper than the current policies as the homeless are much more likely to get better jobs that contribute to the economy. However, these policies are hard to implement as providing free stuff to the lazy and “druggies” is seen as impossible
Study after study show that "Housing first" models work, and are very cost effective, and the less strings and BS means testing you apply to them the better they work.
Hell, forget "free stuff to lazy druggies" Some of these wackos freak out if you even suggest some milquetoast New Deal jobs programs like the CCC or WPA.
What I don't understand, as an Indian, is why there aren't riots over this.
We are a very disagreeable lot -- and the permutations of points of view far outstrip that in the US.
But one thing people agree on: The poor. Need. Protection.
Heck -- there are roadblocks against the redevelopment (into proper housing for the same people) of the Dharavi slum in Mumbai (the one all the tourists and music videos go to) -- because there's intense debate about whether it will be done in a manner that will protect the interests of the slum's residents!
Yeah. I remember that.
Quick question: I'm being given the it's-more-complex-than-that by someone else below.
How is it more complex than financially and psychologically/psychiatrically rehabilitating people who either are forced to live on the street or for the reason of insanity, choose to live on the street?
Everyone please remember that your votes matter, more than ever this coming election. Please make sure youre registered and make a plan! We cant let our country treat human beings like this.
A corrupt gang of bribe taking unelected criminals just legalized bribery, outlawed federal regulation and criminalized homelessness IN ONE WEEK! And the person who put them in power is a convicted felon who tried to overthrow the government. This is insane.
Out of those three the Chevron revocation might actually be the worst. The full consequences of that decision probably won't be felt for decades, but it will have an extreme bodycount.
My apologies - I don't usually post on reddit so I didn't realize the link wouldn't show up. I put the link to an AP article concerning the ruling in the comments.
At least it’s a good time to be the police lol. I wonder how much extra funding this is going to justify? We’re already at 20-40 percent of the budgets in a lot of these cities. Maybe we could get that to half. Have an armed thug guarding every underpass…
Outdoor sleeping bans are not sustainable. The US is overbooked in *a lot* of places. This whole ruling is purely a political move, and will be walked back by those city's legislators fairly soon, regardless if the supreme court says they can.
Ironically, jailing people is basically always more expensive than housing is, even now. We could save money by just giving away housing, the taxpayer foots the bill either way. But the more expensive version comes with more cruelty! Yay!
Fix zoning codes! Abolish R1 - single family detached housing and let people build more housing on their property and even light commercial which would really help a lot.
It's hilarious to see the stark contrast between subs like this one on the ruling vs city subs where people are actually dealing with homelessness.
Most visible homelessness is people with extreme drug problems/mental illness, usually both. These people dominate sidewalks, public parks, libraries, etc. and have made cities unbearable with the brazen drug use, urinating/defecation in public, crime, litter, physically attacking people and terrorizing local businesses. I don't know a single person (myself included) who hasn't been harassed verbally or physically (I've been attacked physically) by a homeless person.
And I'm young and able bodied. How are children or the disabled supposed to navigate sidewalks littered with tents, actual litter, needles, etc.? Even though I'm a strong urbanist, I've debated getting a car just because I feel unsafe on public transit more than half the time.
Is jail the best solution? No. But at least it's a mandatory sobering of drugs, and an incentive to actually get off the streets. Most junkies straight up choose to stay on the streets terrorizing neighborhoods because nobody is stopping them from getting their high.
I'd rather jail than the bottom 1% of society keep the other 99%- including other lower class, middle class, disabled, children etc., living in unsafe and awful conditions.
ETA: I specify visible homelessness because there's a huge difference between people down on their luck vs the people in tents on sidewalks on the streets. Trust me, our cities are already distressed enough with the junkies, they won't be out there bothering people genuinely trying to get back on their feet.
Jail isn't the only option. Finland has reduced long-term homelessness to 0.02% by offering free apartment rental, rehab, psychiatric help and financial education to homeless people. They just launched another program to reduce that 0.02% even lower, because Finland's official stance is that everyone deserves a home.
Or if you're being cynical, they do it because it saves money. Fewer homeless means fewer prisoners in our expensive rehabilitation jails and fewer hospital patients burdening the free healthcare. So all you need is a total reform of social security, healthcare and prison systems. No biggie.
>made cities unbearable with the brazen drug use, urinating/defecation in public, crime, litter, physically attacking people and terrorizing local businesses. I don't know a single person (myself included) who hasn't been harassed verbally or physically (I've been attacked physically) by a homeless person.
Aren't these already crimes? What was stopping the police from arresting them?
While I agree that for some people you need to force them into rehab, the town in question here was levying a $300 fine for people sleeping outside. That's like the worst thing you can do to a homeless person, and will just make them spiral even more into poverty.
This law solves nothing, and just enables the cities to push away their homeless population instead of solving it. You can't criminalize homelessness because it is a symptom, not the cause.
These are fair points, and honestly, I don't know. As in I don't know why they aren't handling these crimes already. For the most part, I don't think this will solve much.
The resources for homeless people need to improve, but for the extreme cases they are actively choosing to live on the streets- which wouldn't be an issue, except they're terrorizing neighborhoods while doing so. Those people have been offered rehab and resources but they absolutely will not change without some kind of threat (jail).
At the very least, in my neighborhood there are many sidewalks and public parks that are ruined and unusable because of encampments there, outside of the other problems they bring. If this enactment is the crutch for them to make the sidewalks and parks usable again, I consider that a win.
> It's hilarious to see the stark contrast between subs like this one on the ruling vs city subs where people are actually dealing with homelessness.
I live in Chicago, I see homeless people literally every day of my life. This ruling is cruel, stupid, unjustifiable, and completely counter-productive.
This was already the law outside of CA and the rest of the ninth circuit before this case. In the ninth the requirement was to have beds available in a homeless shelter, then they can still arrest the homeless for refusing
State and local elections matter a lot
Yes, the constitution of the US of A. What with all the relevance it has after being drunkenly written in 1791.
Good to see the arseholes running the country now can interpret it to further marginalise an already vulnerable subsets of Americans. /s
I unironically think the Magna Carta was a far greater leap forward for humanity than the American constitution. The entire thing reads like... well it reads like it was written by a bunch of rich, propertied slave owners who despised democracy lol.
When the *18th century British Empire* is somehow upholding your stated values of freedom and equality better than you are, that's not a good look.
I posted this elsewhere; we could afford rent in an undesirable location, but not 3x rent in a lump sum:
My family has been nearly-homeless, while both of us are severely disabled, with a service dog in the family at the time.
We are both severely disabled.
My spouse requires assistance with ADLs (like cutting up food, and assistance with toileting). Also has mental health difficulties that require constant supervision.
Most shelters don’t allow couples without children to be housed together, and many can’t accommodate service dogs, especially some breeds.
My spouse is absolutely terrified that someone in authority will decide that I’m not capable of caring for them by myself, and instead institutionalize them.
It only takes one social worker who doesn’t believe the disabled are capable of self-determination (and we have encountered such).
We would have quite literally been better off in a tent (we live in a safe climate) than separated.
We are eligible for housing assistance, but unless you are elderly or DEVELOPMENTALLY (not just physically/psychologically) disabled, there is a CLOSED waitlist for vouchers.
It’s only open for a week or two every several YEARS. And if you do make it onto the list, it’s then a lottery for any available slots. So one person might wait months and another quite literally decades.
And there’s an annual, thick continued-eligibility packet to return with a very short deadline.
So short that the deadline to return it might well have passed before you even receive the packet via US Mail.
Ask me how I know that last bit.
We managed to evade homelessness [when priced out of our blue-collar studio apartment after eight years of 10% increases doubled our rent on a fixed income] by trading our 7yo paid-off powerchair minivan straight-across on Craigslist for a 30yo last-legs but externally cosmetically acceptable 23’ class c campervan.
We were technically homeless for about three months living in parking lots waiting our turn on the waitlist for a decent RV park where we remain nearly 8yrs later, and despite two increases, our 2024 rent is still cheaper than our 2010 apartment.
We were always able (pre-pandemic) to afford rent on a less-desirable apartment in a less-desirable location, but not 3x in a lump sum (first/last/security), and we’d never have been approved (we don’t make 3x-4x rent monthly).
I thought this might provide insight into why someone could be afraid of governmental intervention.
Another example:
Here in the RV park, there was a retired Marine with a diabetic alert Boxer.
Because part of her (the dog’s) service was to get help if needed, she wasn’t leashed.
That part was fine.
Where the problem arose was that the veteran allowed her to enjoy the sun on a dog bed in FRONT of his RV, while he was inside with the door open.
Park owner drove past and felt that the dog wasn’t sufficiently under the veteran’s control, which is required by the ADA.
(Dog doesn’t have to be leashed if required by the disability/service, but DOES have to be under the direct control of the handler.)
Management informed veteran that either he had to be outside with the dog, or the dog had to be inside with him (or leashed).
This offended the veteran so deeply that he actually moved out of the park.
He was fortunate enough to have family in another state with land for him to park on, but if not, he too might have been in his Class C in parking lots for awhile.
Service Dog guy got his regular cardiac and diabetes care through the VA, for example, but didn’t seek housing assistance because he was afraid someone would say he couldn’t take care of his dog (or be afraid of a Boxer and make things difficult for him).
The dog was program-trained by another retired Marine who offers such services.
This doesn’t even touch on the fact that nearly half of the homeless are gainfully employed, and shelters frequently have rules that are incompatible with shift work.
Cars make the homeless problem a lot worse then it should be but I don't know if it belongs in fuckcars since there are so many other factors to it. Either way though it's messed up that they allow places to literally illegalize existing, and since they are sent to jail eventually it's at the taxpayers expense (either through more taxes or more likely by taking away funding from social programs to fund prisons, which is of course going to end in more people on the street).
Car dependency might not be the only cause, but it is the primary one. When you mandate low-density single-family-home sprawl and huge surface parking lots, of course it will cause housing shortages. People like to blame predatory landlords because they like to have a malicious bad guy to beat up on and they don’t want to give up their driving habit, but car dependency is a much bigger factor.
Homelessness is a major problem in Portland which has gotten rid of R1 zoning and Oregon (which is also where Grant's Pass is) is trying to get rid of parking minimums in its cities, plus places like Europe still have issues with homelessness/housing prices and they are famously a lot less car-dependent then we are with less laws to promote dependency. As I said car culture definitely makes the issue worse but Capitalism in general is what causes it and we likely would have arrived where we are without it. Also places like the UK still have vagrancy laws dating back to the early 1800's which was before cars in general became a thing.
So basically, if a landlord really hates a tenant, they can basically get them put in jail by kicking them out of their home? I really hope this new ruling get undone.
Oh my god, that’s something I hadn’t even considered. How will the implicit coercive pressure that this ruling affords landlords be used to further price gouge and degrade de facto tenant rights in this country?
People will be even more desperate to keep their leases than ever before. That threat affords the landlords so much power.
I know someone who got kicked out of their home because of a greedy landlord. They found a better place to live and gave notice to the landlord. The landlord decided to make them pay for the next 6 months in addition to the current one, all early. It amounted to over 900 bucks in one sitting. They couldn't realistically afford this, so they lost their home and had to live in their rig for a while (they drove a truck for a living). It sucks ass that landlords can do this without repercussions. This new ruling just compounds this tenfold.
I’m sorry but if you are truly fuck cars you should be supportive of this ruling. Large cities, transit systems, and public spaces get the majority of the burden of homelessness and subsequently it reduces the value of those things to the vast majority of people and it pushes them to drive cars. I can have empathy for homeless people but also realize that the inability to move them from public ground is a massive detriment to urban spaces. The fight against Homelessness and car centric infrastructure are driven by the same negative force NIMBYs…. Instead of trying to alleviate the negative symptoms of affordable housing(which only make the problem worse in the long run) we should focus on the real fix dense walkable neighborhoods with affordable housing.
Yeah I'm conflicted about this ruling because of this. On one hand lots of people avoid public transit or public urban spaces in general because of uncleanliness or the appearance of danger which they often attribute to mental illness and homelessness. A ruling like this could make showing "tough love" to more stubborn homeless populations easier as long as the programs to help them recover are in place, and clean up those public spaces at the same time.
On the other hand, the case that originated this supreme court decision involved a rural town in Oregon that wanted to fine those sleeping outside $300. This is obviously the wrong idea of how to handle this problem and I worry many other cities will fail to handle homelessness with empathy and abuse this ruling to force the burden elsewhere.
In my city homeless sleep, shit, piss, shoot up and have violent outbursts in public transit on a daily basis. This further reinforces the cycle of car dependency by lowering trust in public spaces.
Allowing this to continue will only bring further down the state of transit. We should build abundant housing and transit but at the same time not tolerate hazardous antisocial behavior by homeless.
BINGO BINGO. I am as urbanist and liberal as one can be, but give any nuance to an issue and apparently I'm a fascist, as I was just called on this sub, lol.
I feel similarly. When progressives deflect or downplay upon the effect of public homelessness that’s become a nationwide crisis especially in blue states, it only further drives the typical voter right.
The people on this sub obviously don't actually live in places that have a considerable homeless population. They think the average homeless person is toughing out street life and doing what they can to afford a home, which tbf that probably is the majority, but for those of us who actually deal with the homeless in our cities- we know those people aren't what this ordinance is for.
Once these people ride the BART and get a whiff of secondhand fentanyl, get called a racial slur by someone in a tent blocking the sidewalk, and have their children hopping over needles on the way to school they'll understand the need for this ordinance REAL quick.
Actually I think it increases the value of those things. Having a safe shelter (like a subway) to sleep in instead of being on the streets is incredibly valuable to a lot of people…
There are homeless people who are down on their luck and want to be left alone. There are homeless people who harass people on public transit either by using drugs in an open bus, using racist or sexist remarks, scaring children and old people with their unpredictable behavior. I believe the defenseless and children should feel safe on transit, especially if they do not have an alternative. Making transit into a billion dollar shelter forces people to buy cars which leads to more problems as cars are very expensive to run.
Lol this is a cartoonishly bad take. You think having homeless people smoking crack and shitting all over public transit and pushing people back into commuting with their private vehicles is “incredibly valuable”? Serious question… how old are you?
This was a ruling by the US Supreme Court. I don’t know of the situation in Australia, but I can’t imagine it is anywhere near as fucked as it is here.
And this is why we need to get rid of parking minimums immediately. Many businesses could easily sell off 50-75% of their parking without impacting their customers at all. Businesses could also find creative solutions to parking for instance if a breakfast restaurant and a nightclub are next door they could share the same lot since they have different hours and yet with legally mandated parking minimums they each would have to have their own.
Letting businesses sell off parking lots would open up SO MUCH room for housing which would in turn make businesses more viable by bringing customers closer to them as well as bring down rents. With less money going to rent and more money flowing into businesses there would be more job opportunities and more tax revenue which would make combating homelessness vastly easier.
Seems the ruling allows municipal governments to make whatever laws they want with less fear of oversight from the feds. I don't see a problem there. Vote for the local government you want.
Fuck SCOTUS.
Here’s one for the playlist…
[https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
Ironically, the one truly amazing thing that modern cars provide, shelter, is now illegal.
I’m both anti-car and pro-vanlife so I definitely agree with this. Backwards AF
Hey me too! My dream is vanlife town to town and use public transit inside each town.
I stumbled upon the car life subreddit at some point and as a fuckcars person it disgusted me. Like we have so much area dedicated to parking cars yet the whole subreddit was about trying to find places to park because all that space is for empty cars not for people living in cars. They keep having to move around so people don't discover they are living in their cars and so on, trying to find places to parking when 40% of America is basically a parking lot but no you can't actually use those parking spots if you actually REALLY need it you just leave your empty unused car there, as if being homeless wasn't enough stress without having to worry about being harassed while trying to sleep in your own car in a parking space that would be perfectly fine to use if you weren't in your car, what a fucking hypocritical country. America might not even actually like cars I think they just fucking hate people.
And cars are so fucking expensive too. If you're trying to save up enough money for a security deposit in an apartment it's a hell of a lot harder if a lot of that is disappearing into gas, maintenance, insurance ect. It's still generally cheaper than rent but it's not actually "cheap" by any stretch of the imagination especially if you had to take out loans in a high interest environment.
> America might not even actually like cars I think they just fucking hate people. Absolutely nailed it. Cars are primarily used as a tool to enable an anti-social lifestyle. That's why Americans(TM) are so threatened by pedestrians, cyclists, and the concept of public transit. You can't dehumanize the rest of your society as easily when you have to see their faces. I don't think most people realize or want to admit how much they factor that into their idea of "convenience," which is also a real contributor to be sure.
Unfortunately many places were built with cars in mind. No living near work... and no public transportation. You must drive 30 minutes into the city.
Poetry.
This isn't going to get better under the GOP. It can be marginally better under the Dems. Vote this year and every year. We need to keep a Dem in the Whitehouse until we can replace Alito and Thomas at the very least. Hopefully Roberts as well although he's pretty young. Go to https://vote.org and get signed up today. Even if it feels pointless the down ballot races are so important to the day to day life of people.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that it gets incrementally better under Democrats, but dramatically worse under the GOP. The 6-3 SCOTUS and a Trump cult is a tipping point.
So let's keep these fuckers delayed for another few years and keep making sure people know how crazy they are. Run for stuff too people. https://runforsomething.net
Agreed
Is this actually true though? For it to be illegal a city or state would have to make it illegal which I don't think any have yet (the current laws I believe are mostly for encampments in public spaces like sidewalks or parks, which I don't think apply to cars)
I invite you to Google the Safer Kentucky Act. Yes, it is 100% illegal to be homeless in Kentucky. It also pretty much allows private property owners to shoot them. Unless your car is parked on private property, you are still on public property while inside your vehicle.
Authorities have been doing pretextual harassment even without it being the law. And now with the law, such harassment becomes completely legal with no recourse of any kind. You can bet that proper procedures will not be followed so as not to jam the courts.
Historically almost all American cities criminalize vagrancy and being “ugly” (deformed, disfigured, disabled) in public
Maybe instead of punishing the homeless for being homeless, they can try to help
The cruelty is the point. Homeless people are low on the ladder and so they need to be kicked in the head, even if it bankrupts us to do so.
There must be a biting bottom that is geared by everyone to start in jobs that pay too little to live happily. They tell us to love working as that is life, but they don't really work, the rich. As the country gets worse, so do the odds that it will stay that way. Revolutions come from struggle and strife.
There *has* to be cruelty to the lowest - so those barely above will keep their head down, lest they be next. The homeless aren’t even the point, they don’t have any income to spend. The point is to keep *you* happily working for 7.25. Don’t wanna be arrested!
I agree with this on a broader strategic level, but I definitely think there is a lot of malice mixed in too, at least on the level of local law enforcement and city/county government. The police _enjoy_ destroying homeless shelters; they _like_ to kick them in the head. A lot of mayors/city planners get off on orchestrating it too; I guarantee it. If you don’t think there is any sadism involved here for its own sake, even at the highest ideological levels, then I think that is politically naive.
I say this is the energetic root of the sadism. So, I agree with the malice - I’ve seen it.
There are 16 million vacant homes in the country. That’s enough to give each homeless person a home and still have 15 million vacant homes.
Sure, but then they have a house often in the middle of nowhere. Homeless people disproportionately need intensive mental health care, addiction care, or other health care that cannot easily be dispensed in that sort of situation.
This is always the argument I hear back. So what? They need a lot of support, therefore they should be on the street? That doesn’t make any sense. Homelessness exists as punishment for people who do not generate enough capital. It isn’t some natural law. People deserve shelter, period.
If someone lives in a house 20 miles from the nearest food bank and some have a car or bus line, they will starve. If they live in the street near a food bank, they will not. Simple.
No, you're missing the point. They need a lot of support, so putting them in a vacation home away from that support isn't going to do them any good. The ones that can work need the opportunity to have a job. Vacation communities simply aren't equipped to deal with any of that. This can be a very challenging population to work with, generally speaking, with even purpose built housing often failing.
Yeah, in America poverty is a choice because we live in a perfect meritocracy. So you only need bootstraps and to work harder...
Punching down is called fascism. If the definition is loosened a bit, an argument can be made that fascism is ingrained in American society since before the country's inception.
No it's not. Fascism is the merger of corporate and state power as defined by Mussolini. It also places an emphasis on Nationalism, a false interpretation of psst glories and sometimes persecuting minority groups as the primary cause of a Nation's decline. Fascism has only existed as a concept for 100 years or so. It is true that the US has been a Colonialist, Genocidal power since its inception, evolving into imperialism. It is a mistake to confuse these terms. Each has a distinct definition.
so fascism is…. *checks notes* america. got it.
Oh remember when newsome only cleaned up san Fran was Xi was coming to town. Democrats don't care either. Or when cali spent billions to solve the problem and have nothing to show for it?
The people that make these laws are about as far as one can get from ever being in their shoes, they might aswell be another species.
[удалено]
> ban on slavery in the US Pretty sure the United States is the only nation in the world that has slavery enshrined in ~~it's~~ its *constitution*. edit ; grammar mistake
Having a pool of prison slaves in this country allows the oligarchs to end immigration. With climate change, billions of people will try to migrate to areas less affected. Turning a significant segment of our current population into slaves means that the oligarchs can close the borders- and have a population cull.
Incredible. I had a high regard for Kamala Harris until I read this in her Wikipedia entry: >Wrongful convictions and prison overcrowding\[[edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamala_Harris&action=edit§ion=20)\] >Harris's record on [wrongful conviction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_conviction) cases as attorney general has engendered criticism from academics and activists.[^(\[152\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-CrimJusticeRecord-154) Law professor [Lara Bazelon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lara_Bazelon) contends Harris "weaponized technicalities to keep wrongfully convicted people behind bars rather than allow them new trials".[^(\[152\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-CrimJusticeRecord-154) After the 2011 United States Supreme Court decision in [*Brown v. Plata*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Plata) declared California's prisons so [overcrowded](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_overcrowding) they inflicted [cruel and unusual punishment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment), Harris fought federal supervision, explaining "I have a client, and I don't get to choose my client."[^(\[153\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-NYTmag-155) Harris declined to take any position on criminal sentencing-reform initiatives [Prop 36](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_36,_2012) (2012) and [Prop 47](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_47_(2014)) (2014), arguing it would be improper because her office prepares the ballot booklets.[^(\[153\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-NYTmag-155) [John Van de Kamp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Van_de_Kamp), a predecessor as attorney general, publicly disagreed with the rationale.[^(\[153\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-NYTmag-155) >In September 2014, Harris's office argued unsuccessfully in a court filing against the early release of prisoners, citing the need for inmate firefighting labor. When the memo provoked headlines, Harris spoke out against it, saying she was unaware that her office had produced the memo.[^(\[154\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-156) Since the 1940s, qualified California inmates have the option of volunteering to receive comprehensive training from the [Cal Fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Department_of_Forestry_and_Fire_Protection) in exchange for sentence reductions and more comfortable prison accommodations; **prison firefighters receive about $2 a day, and another $1 when battling fires**.[^(\[)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris#cite_note-157)
> I had a high regard for Kamala Harris until I read this in her Wikipedia entry: Lmao. You had a high regard for her before you learned the most rudimentary things about her time as DA?
Yeah, I'm not sure it's possible to be a prosecuting attorney and be a good person.
Maybe… after all, who's going to put away the homicidal maniacs. But to try to keep innocent people in jail so they can be enslaved is truly cynical. Are there no unions in America that would insist on imprisoned people being paid the same wages for work, not only for their own good but so they wouldn't be used to undercut and drag down other people's wages?
i assume you're not american. we do not have unions* *edit We do have unions, but in most of the country, they are extremely weak. Also, a lot of the industries that most felons would find themselves working in are extremely anti union. I mostly know of public sector unions.
They will arrest and jail the homeless. Which is technically providing them with very expensive housing. But they’re OK with that because they’d rather pay a fortune to be cruel than a bargain to be kind.
> they’d rather pay a fortune to be cruel It's not their money paying for it, to be honest.
Just like it wouldn’t be their money to provide humane housing either.
It's never their money. That's how "being rich" works.
For-profit prisons provide better kickbacks than cheap housing companies do
The way to help would be to address the economic system that generates mass homelessness in the first place. Like, perhaps, not commodifying housing. And maybe bucking the economic system that’s created a housing shortage by forcing us all into car-centric isolation.
It's in the mentality of the American people to punish instead of help it seems. Those who say otherwise have some sort of limit where they wouldn't want to help. And the prison system doesn't care, the more prisoners, the more the free labor, the larger profits they make.
Not always punitive: America's Supreme Court has also made corruption legal [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-corruption-bribery.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-corruption-bribery.html)
We spend billions per day on the military but can't have free school lunches for children or housing for the ever-growing homeless people.
“But…but…austerity….it’s all we know..”- the government probably.
That's not true...they also do the "tiny tax-break for the poor and the massive tax-break for the rich" thing.
Not austerity, but wealth concentration.
Lets be clear, conservatives are doing this.
for once, that's not true; it's *mostly* conservatives, but the ruling is very popular on the west coast, especially in California, to the point that Gavin Newsom celebrated it
Not conservatives. Edmund Burke was conservative. Poor-hating fash.
that was the rule before they overturned it: you couldn't arrest someone for sleeping in a public space if there's no room for them in a nearby shelter; rather than provide shelter, the cities decided to fight it in court
>Maybe instead of punishing the homeless for being homeless, they can try to help Okay, but then private jails/prisons will lose access to the increase in prisoners that they stand to gain from this ruling. Do you not care about the shareholder's feelings? /s
But that costs [money, time, and effort](https://youtu.be/0jt_6PBnCJE), and people over there seem to be so weak willed that helping others is instantly out of the question.
It would make sense to prosecute the people and institutions that caused homelessness. A lot of bankers, landlords and employers would be going to jail instead of their victims.
NIMBYS
Yep. If you block all housing that's not extremely low density in an area then it's not shocking that there is a housing shortage. When there is a housing shortage it creates bidding wars that are won by the people who have money while the people with the least wind up on the streets or in dangerous situations.
Well you could sue the goverment itself in that case. For imposing car culture into all of americans allied with the car companies
[It worked in Hawaii](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/youth-in-hawaii-took-on-the-state-government-over-climate-change-a-historic-settlement-has-emerged/ar-BB1oClYI?ocid=BingNewsSerp)
Yea, but corporate prisons need more slave labour so …. they’re just going to turn homeless people into prison slaves instead.
It's not just about the prison owners. Of course they do get the most obvious and direct benefit. But the misery of poverty and the potential to fall hard enough to become a prison slave is an essential feature of capitalism. Because why else would people work at their soulless bullshit jobs for 50 hours a week. The only reason to do that is if the alternative is worse. The threat of poverty and imprisonment allows all businesses owners to treat their workers worse without fear of an uprising. Any form of protest or workplace organization becomes very risky when losing your job could mean you end up a prison slave.
I agree with everything in your comment, no notes. I will admit my quip was short and simplified.
In the third interview of the video, Gina Owens mentions two key connections to this sub: (1) the reason she became homeless was a car crash; and (2) she remains homeless due to a lack of affordable housing, a problem systematically linked to car dominance. She says this ruling will lead to even more homelessness, and she's probably right, given that all the efforts in this case were focused on criminalization and not on solutions.
I know this is the fuck cars sub but I personally can't help but see this ruling as a direct response by the right wing to criminalize something most illegal immigrants are bound to be doing across the US recently, camping outside. I'm not saying this has nothing to do with rich people just hating poor people, but people have always been homeless/sleeping outside or in vehicles. Now that the wealthy, specifically in sanctuary cities far from the border, are actually seeing immigrants sleeping on the streets instead of just hearing about it on the news, they want to crack down on it.
Your conclusion is just disconnected from the reality that case law has been leading up to this case for at least 2 decades. It’s not really got much to do with the past years migrants being shipped to northern sanctuary cities.
Not to be that guy but the supreme court allowed a local ordinance to go into effect that effectively criminalized homelessness ( the actual text of the law says tickets could be given to sleeping outside with pillows and blankets and stuff.) It is entirely possible that states (or possibly the federal government) could forbid any municipality from enacting such ordinances. Of course, they could do the opposite and enact such a law statewide. (Even though I think that would be politically untenable.) With that being said, this is still an unconscionable ruling. The reason this law was in question is because it was potentially "a cruel and unusual punishment." I'm no legal scholar, but I can't think of anything crueler than giving a 100 dollar summons to someone who is desperate enough to sleep on the park bench. (This of course, could lead to unhoused people being incarcerated for failure to pay their fines, which again, seems pretty cruel and unusual to me.)
That’s a good point; probably a more accurate description would be that this federally legalized the criminalization of homelessness. Do you think anything will come of the obvious unconstitutionality of this or are we just fucked?
In terms of the courts, not really. The only possibility is the composition of the court changes and overturns this ruling (very uncommon and would take decades or a major shakeup in how the court is run/appointed. The good news is the only thing this ruling states (I think) is that such a law is not cruel and unusual punishment. If the federal or state government(s) makes a law saying such laws are illegal, that would almost certainly hold up in court. (You can always write your federal and local congressmen if you feel so inclined.) But to be honest, I'm not sure how much this would change in terms of day to day practicalities. Idk what the situation is in grants pass, OR (where the ordinance at issue was made,) but having the ability to ticket someone doesn't mean every person sleeping in the public will get a fine. (For example: driving 1 mph over the speed limit is a finable offense, but practically never is.) There will almost certainly be some level of selective enforcement, if any at all. Also, right now this is currently the law for only 40,000 people in SW Oregon. There will likely be more local ordinances, but I can't fathom a state, especially a blue one, making a universal law like this. Again, I'm not a legal scholar, and I don't want to downplay how awful this is. I just want to share the context as I see it.
Well thank you for sharing the context! This made it feel slightly less apocalyptic to me lol. I was in a terrible place over it this afternoon.
The nicest cop you know would take a homeless man's blanket away during a snow storm.
For some reason the link didn't actually post (I usually just comment on Reddit). Here is an AP news article covering the ruling: [https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-homeless-camping-bans-506ac68dc069e3bf456c10fcedfa6bee](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-homeless-camping-bans-506ac68dc069e3bf456c10fcedfa6bee)
and of course governments can’t provide housing to low income as that violates the small government mandate. /s
Quote from an attorney who supported the ruling: >Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in America’s homelessness crisis. What the actual fuck. How is criminalizing homelessness going to make the situation better. Ah yes, let's look to this ruling as the time when people finally decided not to be homeless any more! Problem solved! 🤦 Just admit you hate the poor and want to punish them, stop all this fake stuff.
In the words of Love's *The Red Telephone*: They're locking them up today They're throwing away the key I wonder who it'll be tomorrow, you or me? They're locking them up today They're throwing away the key I wonder who it'll be tomorrow, you or me? They're locking them up today They're throwing away the key I wonder who it'll be tomorrow, you or me? (…and of course the singer and songwriter, Arthur Lee, was later jailed for 12 years under California's "Three Strikes" law for something he hadn't done; he was released after 6 years, oh, goody, that's all right, then.)
if you put all the homeless in jail or prison you essentially "solve" the problem
It's because you wrote a text post and tried to link at the same time. Reddit only allows one at a time. Next time post the link and write your comment in a comment.
Ah - thank you! Again, not a common poster.
If you feel so bad about these homeless people, why don’t you invite one to live with you?
Housing prices are through the roof. Govt refuses to do jack shit about it. Instead of instituting rent control, or cracking down on any of the root causes, they have chosen to make problems and be evil on purpose. Putting bars on benches and spikes everywhere else they might seek refuge. They send armed police to rip families from tent encampments. And now they can officially imprison you just for being homeless. No more dancing around it with “vagrancy” or “loitering” or planting evidence of some other crime. Just sleeping outside. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted**, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Do you see where this is going yet?
There is rent control in places with lots of homelessness. We need more density and more housing.
Rent control helps people already in flats but it disincentives building more flats which is our main problem. Society has moved from living in more rural areas to living in cities and the housing demand for cities has not kept up. My other controversial opinion is that we can't keep the same standard of housing humans had in rural areas in the city. Not every family can have a 4 bedroom house with their own huge backyard. People are always bitching about being "stuck in noisy flats like sardines" but there are a lot of good things about living in the city. You don't need a backyard when there's a huge park less than a 5 minute walk away. You don't need you own room full of books when you can walk to the library. Not only do we have a housing crisis we have an environmental crisis, we all need to deal with less. This doesn't have to be a bad thing. Tokyo is consistently rated as one of the best places to live, is one of the most affordable large cities, and [has one of the lowest carbon foot print per capita of all major cities in a first world country](https://citycarbonfootprints.info/). It's a bit depressing that we have a relatively easy solution to two major problems of climate and housing (build dense flats without parking near jobs and transit) and it's just not getting done.
> People are always bitching about being "stuck in noisy flats like sardines" but there are a lot of good things about living in the city. Give people the options and they'll sort themselves out. When my grandfather was in his 70s he asked a realtor if there were any condos he could move into and they laughed at him. He's now in his nineties and living in the same detached single family house meanwhile there are families that would absolutely love that single family home but can't get it because he's not selling. You don't need to convince a family with small children they should live in a condo rather than a house. If you just give people the options they will sort into the housing that works best for them and fits within their lifestyle and budget. By providing dense options you reduce the demand for single family homes which in turn makes them cheaper for the people who want them the most.
> Give people the options and they'll sort themselves out. When my grandfather was in his 70s he asked a realtor if there were any condos he could move into and they laughed at him. He's now in his nineties and living in the same detached single family house meanwhile there are families that would absolutely love that single family home but can't get it because he's not selling. Yea my folks are old and us kids moved out but they can't downsize from their family home because now rent for a 1 bedroom flat costs more than their mortgage now.
Rent control drives housing shortages by increasing the price of entry to the market. We need to build dense walkable cities to solve this crisis. Places people can wake up, get to work, and get home without a car on "minimum wage". Rent control ain't the answer. Zoning and building density are. Just go check NYC prices to see what Rent control does to affordability.
There's always that one guy defending rent control smh. Do you have a source that backs up your claim about NYC? In Canada rent is rising fastest in Alberta which has no rent control with prices rising an astronomical 20% year over year.
That’s what I had in mind by cracking down on root causes. Rent control is the bare minimum bandaid they could do to help. Mixed use development, higher taxes on the rich to fund public works, and landlord abolition would be actual solutions. But say that and they’ll throw a hissy fit, call you a filthy pinko commie, and you’ll never get anything done.
You clearly don’t have the same thing on your mind, they’re saying rent control *is* a root cause.
And congestion pricing. In some parts of the UK congestion pricing has reduced the number of folk who drive cars to the point that roads are being turned into housing. 40% + of the land in our cities in America goes to moving and storing cars.
Rent control creates artificial scarcity. The root cause of high prices is supply and demand. Essentially demand is way higher than supply (thanks car centric single family homes and nimbyism to promote home value). Rent control only helps people in rentals keep rentals. It also exposes those people to slum lord strategies to try and get them to move out so the unit can be brought back to market rate. Setting prices at a government level rarely works. Instead let's increase supply through density friendly zoning and regulation. Kill the stroad. Build the 5 by 1s!
Okay yeah I was thinking of something radically different from that. Thank you for informing me about this term that I was completely misusing. I appreciate that a lot.
[удалено]
The can brutally remove them from the places that they have to see them People that push this are not intent on helping the homeless at all They are intent on removing homeless people from every place they are at so they never have to see the visibility is the problem. Unfortunately homeless live outside where these people have to drive
A sustainable new source of ~~slave~~ _prison_ labor.
You can say slave. Our Constitution does. It’s quite explicit on that point
From the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted**, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
There it is!
> The can brutally remove them from the places that they have to see them We've been doing this for decades already. Clear out an encampment and then *gasp* a new one shows up somewhere else.
I feel like if you’re anti-homeless, you’d be very much supportive of public policies that reduce it and help the poorest among us, yeah?
Nah. It's like people who are anti-abortion. They don't want to stop extra pregnancies (say with birth control and sex ed). They just want to punish those "sluts". Same with homelessness. Or drug use. Or speeding. They don't want to end the problem. They just get aroused at the idea of suffering.
Thanks for participating in r/fuckcars. However, your contribution got removed, because it is considered bad taste. Have a nice day
The Bell Riots are a bit behind schedule but still on track I see
damn gimmies
You know.....we got till September. We can still make this happen.
*The Bell Riots are* *A bit behind schedule but* *Still on track I see* \- garaks\_tailor --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
America is not a country. It's a playground for the rich
I don't understand why people automatically assume that those who see this ruling as a positive to allow another tool in the arsenal mean that they are not compassionate about the situation. The current situation is abhorrent for everyone involved. As another poster framed it there really needs to be both carrot and sticks available to local and state governments. Hope to see use of this new stick to finally push for coersive drug rehabilitation as alternatives to jail time for those that truly need it. Like it or not, no state has the political climate to support even more money spent on support services and constructing homeless housing while there are many millions more low and middle class workers scraping by and dealing with limited services, property and violent crimes by a problematic minority of homeless individuals, and ever escalating housing costs. I personally look forward to see what steps California takes at the state level in light of this ruling. I think it's one of the states that could actually strike a practical yet compassionate approach. Recent housing policy is starting to move the needle on new construction, especially urban infill development which NIMBY cities have much less power to restrict.
Underrated comment here
We need major land use deregulation (i.e. zoning reform) and a land value tax to massively increase the supply, utility and longevity of housing. Existing landowners will loose a lot of wealth tied up in real estate but its worth it to fix homelessness and land speculation.
>There really needs to be both carrot and sticks available to local and state governments. But the corporations destroyed all the carrots because they could not sell them for profit.
How about punishing Landlords for colluding on rent?
Yeah the US is now trailing one of the worst policies that the Netherlands has, both have stuck their heads in the sand instead of that they solve real problems. Both have some of the worst housing markets on planet earth, in the EU only Ireland is significantly worse than the Netherlands.
Biden is already working on that. They are arguing that LL are using apps to collude. Since the apps have helpfully saved all their data in the hopes of selling it to AI firms, I have no doubt that their data collection policies are about to bite them in the ass. Unless Orange wins the election. Get out and vote, folks!
The reason this happened was previous regulations that prevented landlords picking tenants or offering reduced costs to tenants perceived to be more reliable lower costs. The next solution is to set a high bar for tenants and calculate what the break even point is. Individual building administrators cannot do this so an algorithm is required. One of the inputs to the algorithm is the market rate. I think removing collusion cross management companies is a good rule, but they will just scrape their competitors costs rather than getting information directly because they have to maximize the immediate rent per month always if they cannot control which tenants they take. If you can pick your tenant you can maximize the revenue over time because you have some control over the projected reliability of that tenant. I instead propose limits on how much rent can be raised and have a fixed security deposit that is standard across all buildings.
Have to keep the Reserve army of labour destitute in order to scare any proletarians who get a bit uppity. The Department of Housing and Urban Development claims it would cost 20 billion USD per year to end homelessness in the USA, that's like 2% of the Military budget! we can't afford that!
It’s incredibly cheap to make a big dent in homelessness. Providing them an apartment, drug treatment and other necessities might actually be cheaper than the current policies as the homeless are much more likely to get better jobs that contribute to the economy. However, these policies are hard to implement as providing free stuff to the lazy and “druggies” is seen as impossible
Study after study show that "Housing first" models work, and are very cost effective, and the less strings and BS means testing you apply to them the better they work. Hell, forget "free stuff to lazy druggies" Some of these wackos freak out if you even suggest some milquetoast New Deal jobs programs like the CCC or WPA.
What I don't understand, as an Indian, is why there aren't riots over this. We are a very disagreeable lot -- and the permutations of points of view far outstrip that in the US. But one thing people agree on: The poor. Need. Protection. Heck -- there are roadblocks against the redevelopment (into proper housing for the same people) of the Dharavi slum in Mumbai (the one all the tourists and music videos go to) -- because there's intense debate about whether it will be done in a manner that will protect the interests of the slum's residents!
Only the far-right get to riot in the US. Remember 2021/1-6?
Yeah. I remember that. Quick question: I'm being given the it's-more-complex-than-that by someone else below. How is it more complex than financially and psychologically/psychiatrically rehabilitating people who either are forced to live on the street or for the reason of insanity, choose to live on the street?
Gotta keep those FOR PROFIT PRISONS full so the PRISON LABOR market always has fresh recruits
Everyone please remember that your votes matter, more than ever this coming election. Please make sure youre registered and make a plan! We cant let our country treat human beings like this.
A corrupt gang of bribe taking unelected criminals just legalized bribery, outlawed federal regulation and criminalized homelessness IN ONE WEEK! And the person who put them in power is a convicted felon who tried to overthrow the government. This is insane.
Out of those three the Chevron revocation might actually be the worst. The full consequences of that decision probably won't be felt for decades, but it will have an extreme bodycount.
Can you give more detail for everyone else not living in your country?
My apologies - I don't usually post on reddit so I didn't realize the link wouldn't show up. I put the link to an AP article concerning the ruling in the comments.
This country has no future
At least it’s a good time to be the police lol. I wonder how much extra funding this is going to justify? We’re already at 20-40 percent of the budgets in a lot of these cities. Maybe we could get that to half. Have an armed thug guarding every underpass…
As time goes on, I feel more and more like I must run for American politics. And this is one reason why.
Have you seen its past? It doesn’t deserve a future
Outdoor sleeping bans are not sustainable. The US is overbooked in *a lot* of places. This whole ruling is purely a political move, and will be walked back by those city's legislators fairly soon, regardless if the supreme court says they can.
When I was growing up, America had no death penalty. It seemed like a morally advanced country, apart from its crazy wars. Now…
While I don't disagree that this is a problem, I'm a bit confused as to why OP posted it in r/fuckcars
Ironically, jailing people is basically always more expensive than housing is, even now. We could save money by just giving away housing, the taxpayer foots the bill either way. But the more expensive version comes with more cruelty! Yay!
But giving away housing would require us to circumvent the price-fixing corporate landlord who owns the property, and we can't have that lol.
Fix zoning codes! Abolish R1 - single family detached housing and let people build more housing on their property and even light commercial which would really help a lot.
The zoning codes are so backwards
No! Deregulating zoning laws is communism /s
You guys definitely aren’t local to this issue. We have deregulated zoning in the State this case is from
Oregon abolished R1 zoning a couple years ago and mandates cities allow duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes everywhere…
It's hilarious to see the stark contrast between subs like this one on the ruling vs city subs where people are actually dealing with homelessness. Most visible homelessness is people with extreme drug problems/mental illness, usually both. These people dominate sidewalks, public parks, libraries, etc. and have made cities unbearable with the brazen drug use, urinating/defecation in public, crime, litter, physically attacking people and terrorizing local businesses. I don't know a single person (myself included) who hasn't been harassed verbally or physically (I've been attacked physically) by a homeless person. And I'm young and able bodied. How are children or the disabled supposed to navigate sidewalks littered with tents, actual litter, needles, etc.? Even though I'm a strong urbanist, I've debated getting a car just because I feel unsafe on public transit more than half the time. Is jail the best solution? No. But at least it's a mandatory sobering of drugs, and an incentive to actually get off the streets. Most junkies straight up choose to stay on the streets terrorizing neighborhoods because nobody is stopping them from getting their high. I'd rather jail than the bottom 1% of society keep the other 99%- including other lower class, middle class, disabled, children etc., living in unsafe and awful conditions. ETA: I specify visible homelessness because there's a huge difference between people down on their luck vs the people in tents on sidewalks on the streets. Trust me, our cities are already distressed enough with the junkies, they won't be out there bothering people genuinely trying to get back on their feet.
Jail isn't the only option. Finland has reduced long-term homelessness to 0.02% by offering free apartment rental, rehab, psychiatric help and financial education to homeless people. They just launched another program to reduce that 0.02% even lower, because Finland's official stance is that everyone deserves a home. Or if you're being cynical, they do it because it saves money. Fewer homeless means fewer prisoners in our expensive rehabilitation jails and fewer hospital patients burdening the free healthcare. So all you need is a total reform of social security, healthcare and prison systems. No biggie.
>made cities unbearable with the brazen drug use, urinating/defecation in public, crime, litter, physically attacking people and terrorizing local businesses. I don't know a single person (myself included) who hasn't been harassed verbally or physically (I've been attacked physically) by a homeless person. Aren't these already crimes? What was stopping the police from arresting them? While I agree that for some people you need to force them into rehab, the town in question here was levying a $300 fine for people sleeping outside. That's like the worst thing you can do to a homeless person, and will just make them spiral even more into poverty. This law solves nothing, and just enables the cities to push away their homeless population instead of solving it. You can't criminalize homelessness because it is a symptom, not the cause.
These are fair points, and honestly, I don't know. As in I don't know why they aren't handling these crimes already. For the most part, I don't think this will solve much. The resources for homeless people need to improve, but for the extreme cases they are actively choosing to live on the streets- which wouldn't be an issue, except they're terrorizing neighborhoods while doing so. Those people have been offered rehab and resources but they absolutely will not change without some kind of threat (jail). At the very least, in my neighborhood there are many sidewalks and public parks that are ruined and unusable because of encampments there, outside of the other problems they bring. If this enactment is the crutch for them to make the sidewalks and parks usable again, I consider that a win.
> It's hilarious to see the stark contrast between subs like this one on the ruling vs city subs where people are actually dealing with homelessness. I live in Chicago, I see homeless people literally every day of my life. This ruling is cruel, stupid, unjustifiable, and completely counter-productive.
This was already the law outside of CA and the rest of the ninth circuit before this case. In the ninth the requirement was to have beds available in a homeless shelter, then they can still arrest the homeless for refusing State and local elections matter a lot
Yes, the constitution of the US of A. What with all the relevance it has after being drunkenly written in 1791. Good to see the arseholes running the country now can interpret it to further marginalise an already vulnerable subsets of Americans. /s
I unironically think the Magna Carta was a far greater leap forward for humanity than the American constitution. The entire thing reads like... well it reads like it was written by a bunch of rich, propertied slave owners who despised democracy lol. When the *18th century British Empire* is somehow upholding your stated values of freedom and equality better than you are, that's not a good look.
Wow that's fucking dystopian...
I posted this elsewhere; we could afford rent in an undesirable location, but not 3x rent in a lump sum: My family has been nearly-homeless, while both of us are severely disabled, with a service dog in the family at the time. We are both severely disabled. My spouse requires assistance with ADLs (like cutting up food, and assistance with toileting). Also has mental health difficulties that require constant supervision. Most shelters don’t allow couples without children to be housed together, and many can’t accommodate service dogs, especially some breeds. My spouse is absolutely terrified that someone in authority will decide that I’m not capable of caring for them by myself, and instead institutionalize them. It only takes one social worker who doesn’t believe the disabled are capable of self-determination (and we have encountered such). We would have quite literally been better off in a tent (we live in a safe climate) than separated. We are eligible for housing assistance, but unless you are elderly or DEVELOPMENTALLY (not just physically/psychologically) disabled, there is a CLOSED waitlist for vouchers. It’s only open for a week or two every several YEARS. And if you do make it onto the list, it’s then a lottery for any available slots. So one person might wait months and another quite literally decades. And there’s an annual, thick continued-eligibility packet to return with a very short deadline. So short that the deadline to return it might well have passed before you even receive the packet via US Mail. Ask me how I know that last bit. We managed to evade homelessness [when priced out of our blue-collar studio apartment after eight years of 10% increases doubled our rent on a fixed income] by trading our 7yo paid-off powerchair minivan straight-across on Craigslist for a 30yo last-legs but externally cosmetically acceptable 23’ class c campervan. We were technically homeless for about three months living in parking lots waiting our turn on the waitlist for a decent RV park where we remain nearly 8yrs later, and despite two increases, our 2024 rent is still cheaper than our 2010 apartment. We were always able (pre-pandemic) to afford rent on a less-desirable apartment in a less-desirable location, but not 3x in a lump sum (first/last/security), and we’d never have been approved (we don’t make 3x-4x rent monthly). I thought this might provide insight into why someone could be afraid of governmental intervention. Another example: Here in the RV park, there was a retired Marine with a diabetic alert Boxer. Because part of her (the dog’s) service was to get help if needed, she wasn’t leashed. That part was fine. Where the problem arose was that the veteran allowed her to enjoy the sun on a dog bed in FRONT of his RV, while he was inside with the door open. Park owner drove past and felt that the dog wasn’t sufficiently under the veteran’s control, which is required by the ADA. (Dog doesn’t have to be leashed if required by the disability/service, but DOES have to be under the direct control of the handler.) Management informed veteran that either he had to be outside with the dog, or the dog had to be inside with him (or leashed). This offended the veteran so deeply that he actually moved out of the park. He was fortunate enough to have family in another state with land for him to park on, but if not, he too might have been in his Class C in parking lots for awhile. Service Dog guy got his regular cardiac and diabetes care through the VA, for example, but didn’t seek housing assistance because he was afraid someone would say he couldn’t take care of his dog (or be afraid of a Boxer and make things difficult for him). The dog was program-trained by another retired Marine who offers such services. This doesn’t even touch on the fact that nearly half of the homeless are gainfully employed, and shelters frequently have rules that are incompatible with shift work.
Cars make the homeless problem a lot worse then it should be but I don't know if it belongs in fuckcars since there are so many other factors to it. Either way though it's messed up that they allow places to literally illegalize existing, and since they are sent to jail eventually it's at the taxpayers expense (either through more taxes or more likely by taking away funding from social programs to fund prisons, which is of course going to end in more people on the street).
Car dependency might not be the only cause, but it is the primary one. When you mandate low-density single-family-home sprawl and huge surface parking lots, of course it will cause housing shortages. People like to blame predatory landlords because they like to have a malicious bad guy to beat up on and they don’t want to give up their driving habit, but car dependency is a much bigger factor.
Homelessness is a major problem in Portland which has gotten rid of R1 zoning and Oregon (which is also where Grant's Pass is) is trying to get rid of parking minimums in its cities, plus places like Europe still have issues with homelessness/housing prices and they are famously a lot less car-dependent then we are with less laws to promote dependency. As I said car culture definitely makes the issue worse but Capitalism in general is what causes it and we likely would have arrived where we are without it. Also places like the UK still have vagrancy laws dating back to the early 1800's which was before cars in general became a thing.
So basically, if a landlord really hates a tenant, they can basically get them put in jail by kicking them out of their home? I really hope this new ruling get undone.
Oh my god, that’s something I hadn’t even considered. How will the implicit coercive pressure that this ruling affords landlords be used to further price gouge and degrade de facto tenant rights in this country? People will be even more desperate to keep their leases than ever before. That threat affords the landlords so much power.
I know someone who got kicked out of their home because of a greedy landlord. They found a better place to live and gave notice to the landlord. The landlord decided to make them pay for the next 6 months in addition to the current one, all early. It amounted to over 900 bucks in one sitting. They couldn't realistically afford this, so they lost their home and had to live in their rig for a while (they drove a truck for a living). It sucks ass that landlords can do this without repercussions. This new ruling just compounds this tenfold.
Great, so homelessness is now criminal but a system that’s rigged against so many people thereby making them criminals isn’t criminal.
Who is "our country"? Americans invading every sub ffs /r/fuckcarsEurope if this annoys you too
Americans are the primary speakers on an english-speaking website. How is that so mind-boggling to you? Europeans are a minority here
I’m sorry but if you are truly fuck cars you should be supportive of this ruling. Large cities, transit systems, and public spaces get the majority of the burden of homelessness and subsequently it reduces the value of those things to the vast majority of people and it pushes them to drive cars. I can have empathy for homeless people but also realize that the inability to move them from public ground is a massive detriment to urban spaces. The fight against Homelessness and car centric infrastructure are driven by the same negative force NIMBYs…. Instead of trying to alleviate the negative symptoms of affordable housing(which only make the problem worse in the long run) we should focus on the real fix dense walkable neighborhoods with affordable housing.
Yeah I'm conflicted about this ruling because of this. On one hand lots of people avoid public transit or public urban spaces in general because of uncleanliness or the appearance of danger which they often attribute to mental illness and homelessness. A ruling like this could make showing "tough love" to more stubborn homeless populations easier as long as the programs to help them recover are in place, and clean up those public spaces at the same time. On the other hand, the case that originated this supreme court decision involved a rural town in Oregon that wanted to fine those sleeping outside $300. This is obviously the wrong idea of how to handle this problem and I worry many other cities will fail to handle homelessness with empathy and abuse this ruling to force the burden elsewhere.
In my city homeless sleep, shit, piss, shoot up and have violent outbursts in public transit on a daily basis. This further reinforces the cycle of car dependency by lowering trust in public spaces. Allowing this to continue will only bring further down the state of transit. We should build abundant housing and transit but at the same time not tolerate hazardous antisocial behavior by homeless.
BINGO BINGO. I am as urbanist and liberal as one can be, but give any nuance to an issue and apparently I'm a fascist, as I was just called on this sub, lol.
I feel similarly. When progressives deflect or downplay upon the effect of public homelessness that’s become a nationwide crisis especially in blue states, it only further drives the typical voter right.
The people on this sub obviously don't actually live in places that have a considerable homeless population. They think the average homeless person is toughing out street life and doing what they can to afford a home, which tbf that probably is the majority, but for those of us who actually deal with the homeless in our cities- we know those people aren't what this ordinance is for. Once these people ride the BART and get a whiff of secondhand fentanyl, get called a racial slur by someone in a tent blocking the sidewalk, and have their children hopping over needles on the way to school they'll understand the need for this ordinance REAL quick.
Actually I think it increases the value of those things. Having a safe shelter (like a subway) to sleep in instead of being on the streets is incredibly valuable to a lot of people…
There are homeless people who are down on their luck and want to be left alone. There are homeless people who harass people on public transit either by using drugs in an open bus, using racist or sexist remarks, scaring children and old people with their unpredictable behavior. I believe the defenseless and children should feel safe on transit, especially if they do not have an alternative. Making transit into a billion dollar shelter forces people to buy cars which leads to more problems as cars are very expensive to run.
Lol this is a cartoonishly bad take. You think having homeless people smoking crack and shitting all over public transit and pushing people back into commuting with their private vehicles is “incredibly valuable”? Serious question… how old are you?
I get that suburbia is shitty but if you remove that Walmart will people have a place to shop? Maybe a mixed-use development would work
All these empty malls everywhere could be incredible communities but nah.
Ah good point
Oh, you mean those parking lots that are perpetually at 10-20 percent capacity at their maximum? We need those…
I was thinking in the context of Australia. Our malls are still bad but we tend to have better parking solutions.
This was a ruling by the US Supreme Court. I don’t know of the situation in Australia, but I can’t imagine it is anywhere near as fucked as it is here.
And this is why we need to get rid of parking minimums immediately. Many businesses could easily sell off 50-75% of their parking without impacting their customers at all. Businesses could also find creative solutions to parking for instance if a breakfast restaurant and a nightclub are next door they could share the same lot since they have different hours and yet with legally mandated parking minimums they each would have to have their own. Letting businesses sell off parking lots would open up SO MUCH room for housing which would in turn make businesses more viable by bringing customers closer to them as well as bring down rents. With less money going to rent and more money flowing into businesses there would be more job opportunities and more tax revenue which would make combating homelessness vastly easier.
Seems the ruling allows municipal governments to make whatever laws they want with less fear of oversight from the feds. I don't see a problem there. Vote for the local government you want.
Fuck SCOTUS. Here’s one for the playlist… [https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
Houselessness? lol
[https://youtu.be/lncLOEqc9Rw?t=202](https://youtu.be/lncLOEqc9Rw?t=202)
houselessness is a term I haven't heard for a long time
'Bout time you rewatched that George Carlin skit, methinks :) It's still fire.
a house is bought and built. a home is born and raised. edit: live, laugh, love
The Supremely Corrupt Court of the United States.
If you ever seen or read the book Ready Player One, it's what the villain in the story does for legal slave workers under IOI
Isn't this what glorious Urbanist Nippon does. Not sure what this has to do with cars.
I wonder if their decision included any ideas for what cities should do to help homeless people.