Cities and Towns can criminalize homelessness

[Guest]

20 hours ago, herbie said:

You mean use common sense and address the causes of the problem?

A lot of people can't afford where they live. Costs of living are skyrocketing. Food. 

Lose hope, and you tend to find drugs and alcohol to fill that void.

Look at San Francisco. Look at the average rent there.

Look at where most of the elites live. Look at where the bulk of the spending for schools go, or the areas. 

Drugs are easily obtainable. Safe injection spaces. How easy is access to treatment for drug addiction?

How much of a deterrent to commit crime?

How much easier to fall into social and cyclical cracks?

20 hours ago, herbie said:

Punish, punish, shame, belittle and lock them up! Pretend the victims are the problem. So much easier

Doing drugs is a choice. I have nobody to blame but myself, for doing the drugs that I did as a youth.

Destroying the relationships that I did. Hurting the people that I did.

My choice. My consequences. That is life. I made my bed, and laid in it, until I made the choice to find a way out.

There no longer is a push for accountability. 

I want to smoke crack and rob stores to fund it, and am now a victim. Seriously?

Uh, no. Your choice to smoke crack made you a drug addict.

The choice to steal, made you a criminal. A thief. 

There are and should be consequences for both.

If I am missing all my teeth, and take dumps on your lawn while cursing the devil and chasing birds while sticking up corner store clerks for free smokes at knife point, the poor choices I have made, have resulted in people laughing at me. Being disgusted by me.

It used to be something shameful. To smoke crack. 

The term crackhead was derogatory. Meaning, you would be making an insanely d**b mistake to even start.

Give me a break. 

Fixing problems at their source is nice, but this soft speak to protect people's feelings is becoming a joke.

Actions have consequences.

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

  I have nobody to blame but myself, for doing the drugs that I did as a youth. 

I would not have guessed you were in that boat.  Condolences for the harm you did and congratulations for getting better.  You have acknowledged 'environment' as a factor.  Now that I know you have inside knowledge, let me ask: what environmental changes would you think helpful, as a matter of public health policy ?

[Matthew]

3 hours ago, User said:

How will it test that?

Well you've said the decision in question does not contribute to the criminalization of homelessness. So to test that you can explain your thoughts on where a homeless person can legally sleep without it being a crime. I'm guessing you know the answer or you wouldn't be avoiding it so hard.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Well you've said the decision in question does not contribute to the criminalization of homelessness. So to test that you can explain your thoughts on where a homeless person can legally sleep without it being a crime. I'm guessing you know the answer or you wouldn't be avoiding it so hard.

No, you said:

"Blaming people for being poor and criminalized their poverty"

I said:

"No one is blaming the poor or criminalizing their poverty by enacting laws regarding how long people can "camp" on public property or otherwise sleep/live on public property."

I simply refuse to play these dishonest games where folks like you make these assertions and then instead of defending them try to distract with questions that don't follow and then refuse to explain how the question would support their assertion. 

 

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

That is a LIE

Let's see your facts / sources.

Every expert on the subject of homelessness, and the local history of every place where homelessness is a problem will testify to a dramatic increase in the mid 1980s.

[Matthew]

5 minutes ago, User said:

No one is ... criminalizing their poverty by enacting laws regarding how long people can "camp" on public property

Ok so this part right here is what I'm testing. If you can tell me where you would legally sleep as a homeless person then presumably you'd be able to show why your hypothetical choice is not a crime. In a policy discussion, it is reasonable to ask for a real world application for one's claim.

[User]

5 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Ok so this part right here is what I'm testing. If you can tell me where you would legally sleep as a homeless person then presumably you'd be able to show why your hypothetical choice is not a crime. In a policy discussion, it is reasonable to ask for a real world application for one's claim.

You made an assertion, I rejected your assertion. It is your job to prove your assertion, not mine to defend my rejection of it. 

You also said criminalize their poverty, when what this criminalizes is someone living in public areas for a certain amount of time or other areas for any time at all. Are all public areas 100% off limits all the time to someone sleeping there? No. 

Can you show me where in America a homeless person has no other alternatives other than to be a criminal on night one of being on the streets?

[impartialobserver]

30 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Ok so this part right here is what I'm testing. If you can tell me where you would legally sleep as a homeless person then presumably you'd be able to show why your hypothetical choice is not a crime. In a policy discussion, it is reasonable to ask for a real world application for one's claim.

Not sure why you are expecting so much from "User". Anyways, in the legal realm.. it comes down to whether the land is public or private. If it is private then the law clearly states that  you can't do so without explicit permission. If it is public then it depends on who is the steward.. the city, county, state, BLM (Bureau of Land Mgmt, Forest Service, etc.). Each has their own policies. For federal land.. the law is 30 consecutive days except in the paid campgrounds. If you are on BLM land and you pull off onto a dirt road and there is no formal signage.. you can expect the 30 day rule. Some of it is a matter of enforcement. If the public land is in or near a city.. then rules will be enforced more strictly. If you are in Paisley, OR.. probably not so. 

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, User said:

You made an assertion

We each made an assertion. Yours is the one I was asking about.

2 hours ago, User said:

You also said criminalize their poverty, when what this criminalizes is someone living in public areas

I implied that this specific decision is part of a larger context or pattern of many similar policies that have long served to treat impoverished people as criminal deviants.

2 hours ago, User said:

Are all public areas 100% off limits all the time to someone sleeping there? No.

See, that's a very specific claim. So that means we can easily test it. If it's true then you can name the specific spot you would legally sleep tonight if you were homeless.

Edited July 9, 2024 by Matthew

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

If the public land is in or near a city.. then rules will be enforced more strictly. If you are in Paisley, OR.. probably not so.

I'm not so sure. From my experience small and medium-sized towns are much more closely policed and far more strict about vagrants, panhandlers, and people living homeless in public spaces. The policy that the OP is based on is from a town of 40k people.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, Matthew said:

I'm not so sure. From my experience small and medium-sized towns are much more closely policed and far more strict about vagrants, panhandlers, and people living homeless in public spaces. The policy that the OP is based on is from a town of 40k people.

Using Paisley, OR as an example.. first, go find this on a map. It is very remote. So not likely to see your garden variety panhandler/drug addict. Small towns, especially out West, are not places of abundance. To be homeless and stay that way.. you need there to be excess resources of sorts.. extra food, extra space, extra whatever. However, places like Paisley OR have abundant open space in every direction. If you were to camp (which I have done).. a mile north of town, you are unlikely to see anybody let alone law enforcement. 

[reason10]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

Let's see your facts / sources.

Every expert on the subject of homelessness, and the local history of every place where homelessness is a problem will testify to a dramatic increase in the mid 1980s.

Only if every source is THE VIEW.

Right now, there is more homelessness in California NOW than at any other time in history and Reagan has been dead since the 90s.

[reason10]

22 minutes ago, Matthew said:

I'm not so sure. From my experience small and medium-sized towns are much more closely policed and far more strict about vagrants, panhandlers, and people living homeless in public spaces. The policy that the OP is based on is from a town of 40k people.

Actually the REAL reason small towns are usually free of bums is because small towns produce people with WORK ethics. There are smaller populations of WELFARE bums, who bring drugs and crime.

Big cities seem to attract welfare bum single family homes.  They usually end up in  poverty. A lot of them end up homeless, always BY CHOICE.

Small towns are just better places to live and usually attract more industrious and more decent people.

[Matthew]

13 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Right now, there is more homelessness in California NOW than at any other time in history and Reagan has been dead since the 90s

No try again. The thing you said I lied about was that homelessness in the US doubled during his presidency. It's pretty widely understood that homelessness spiked in the mid 1980s, so what makes you think that it didn't?

[reason10]

5 minutes ago, Matthew said:

No try again. The thing you said I lied about was that homelessness in the US doubled during his presidency. It's pretty widely understood that homelessness spiked in the mid 1980s, so what makes you think that it didn't?

I'm kinda old. I lived during the Reagan miracle. And I remember the goose stepping Democrats LYING about homelessness, and trying to  blame it on Reagan.

His policies had NOTHING to do with bums on the street, drug addicts getting kicked out, etc. Reagan's policies raised ALL boats and EVERYONE was better off.

If you want to blame a president for homelessness, you need to go back as far as JFK, who signed the bill deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill. This cause mental institutions to dump their patients out onto the streets.

Reagan wasn't even in elected office when that happened.

[User]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

We each made an assertion. Yours is the one I was asking about.

You: The sky is yellow!

Me: No it isn't.

You: We both made assertions!

*facepalm*

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

I implied that this specific decision is part of a larger context or pattern of many similar policies that have long served to treat impoverished people as criminal deviants.

And... how does this treat impoverished people as criminal deviants? Not all impoverished people are homeless nor do they try to live in public spaces or exceed camping limits in recreational areas... 
 

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

See, that's a very specific claim. So that means we can easily test it. If it's true then you can name the specific spot you would legally sleep tonight if you were homeless.

What do you mean if its true? Are you so obtuse here that you are going to deny the obvious? 

Can you show me where in America a homeless person has no other alternatives other than to be a criminal on night one of being on the streets?

[Matthew]

5 minutes ago, User said:

We both made assertions!

Yes, both of those are assertions.

11 minutes ago, User said:

how does this treat impoverished people as criminal deviants?

Allowing local governments wide latitude for imposing criminal punishments and all kinds of sweeping rules aimed at preventing homeless people sleeping in public spaces, without having to offer any legal alternative for shelter.

17 minutes ago, User said:

Can you show me where in America a homeless person has no other alternatives other than to be a criminal on night one of being on the streets?

Sure, the town in the Supreme Court case: Grants Pass, Oregon. Trargeting the entire homeless population of 600 people by simply banning all camping and all roadside sleeping. First offense is a fine, after that the punishment is jail.

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

His policies had NOTHING to do with bums on the street

Ok, so you don't deny that homelessness doubled under Reagan. Now you're saying it just wasn't his fault.

Frankly I'm not sure what to make of your comments in general. I can't tell if you're genuine or if you're just trying to make fun of conservatives by playing this caricature.

[reason10]

8 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Ok, so you don't deny that homelessness doubled under Reagan. Now you're saying it just wasn't his fault.

Frankly I'm not sure what to make of your comments in general. I can't tell if you're genuine or if you're just trying to make fun of conservatives by playing this caricature.

HOmeless QUADRUPLED under California Governor Newsome.

So what?

And you haven't provided any reliable or factual links to that myth about homeless during Reagan. He gave us the GREATEST economy in history.

[User]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

Yes, both of those are assertions.

Allowing local governments wide latitude for imposing criminal punishments and all kinds of sweeping rules aimed at preventing homeless people sleeping in public spaces, without having to offer any legal alternative for shelter.

Sure, the town in the Supreme Court case: Grants Pass, Oregon. Trargeting the entire homeless population of 600 people by simply banning all camping and all roadside sleeping. First offense is a fine, after that the punishment is jail.

You did not read my question well, and did not even remember the bounds of your own question to me...

Nothing Grants Pass did criminalized someone for one night of having nowhere to sleep and thus by no other choice having to sleep in some public space. 

They did not ban all camping.

What they did was put limits and restrictions on this so that the migrant homeless populations would not turn their city into a permanent homeless encampment. 

You do realize the vast majority of homeless people are there by choice, addiction, or mental health issues? The people we are talking about are not some down on their luck person who as your silly question frames, just needed a place to sleep and had no other alternatives. 



 

[Matthew]

11 hours ago, User said:

They did not ban all camping.

"The Grants Pass Municipal Code prohibits activities such as camping on public property or parking overnight in the city’s parks. See §§5.61.030, 6.46.090(A)–(B). Initial violations can trigger a fine, while multiple violations can result in imprisonment." (Source, p. 1)

 

11 hours ago, User said:

You do realize the vast majority of homeless people are there by choice, addiction, or mental health issues? The people we are talking about are not some down on their luck person

Interesting, tell me more about how homeless people are blamed for their homelessness. Despite struggling to justify your thoughts on criminalization, now you're jumping over and helping to demonstrate my other point.

Edited July 10, 2024 by Matthew

[impartialobserver]

I can see why Grants Pass would do this. First, they are trying to attract business to their small-ish town. They are also trying to attract the middle class family.. one that uses parks. I know.. I have one of these families. The parks in Reno-Sparks that have a high homeless population tend to be not well used and also are not the areas where new development pops up. The laws in Reno are pretty simple.. no camping in parks or overnight parking. So then what they do about the empty land along the river where there are no businesses but also no roads, no houses, and only sparse trails? Answer.. tolerate the homeless that are willing to endure the elements. 

[User]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

"The Grants Pass Municipal Code prohibits activities such as camping on public property or parking overnight in the city’s parks. See §§5.61.030, 6.46.090(A)–(B). Initial violations can trigger a fine, while multiple violations can result in imprisonment." (Source, p. 1)

OK, yeah, they ban camping in public spaces. I was thinking about camping at anywhere. Also my brain was not thinking about the city proper... when counties usually have public campgrounds in them. 
 

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

Interesting, tell me more about how homeless people are blamed for their homelessness. Despite struggling to justify your thoughts on criminalization, now you're jumping over and helping to demonstrate my other point.

Are you arguing that 100% of homeless people are so because of nothing they chose on their own? 

Where did I struggle? 

You have yet to ever even try to back up your assertion here, you just keep avoiding my questions. 
 

[impartialobserver]

I have experience with being truly homeless and so know the plight intimately. This is not where I lived in my car because my next home was being built. No.. It was moving to SLC in 1999 and my job falling through. They hired me technically but upon arriving on August 21.. they told me that I was not needed and so started the shi$storm. That being said, I spent 8 weeks on the street and can say that most that I encountered were there by choice. yes, they would have moved into an apartment if given it but they chose to not have jobs and all that comes with it. Second, most were drug addicts and that dictated their life. The city of Salt lake had similar laws. We got around them by sleeping in abandoned buildings, alleyways, and in parks where you could not be seen from the road. 

[herbie]

Had a buddy that lived in the garage of an abandoned house for years going to college. Used the gas staion on the corner to wash up. Even tapped his hydro and cable tv off the neighbour... on a like 12" B&W Tv.

He dropped out in his 3rd year and I never knew what became of him.

There's a lot of working people living in cars and vans and trailers in a rest area these days, a couple are interviewed every week on TV. Even a nurse that was renovicted and living in her van for months who was working full time.

Should they lock her up too for parking in front of your house?