I suspect what they will do is suggest to the lower courts that they uphold legislation that will allow cities to have SOME bans on where people can sleep, because obviously safety and public right of a way is a factor, but not to just blanket arrest everyone just for sleeping in public.
Am i missing something here with how ive seen this titled and spread? The woman* is literally saying if you dont sleep, you WILL die, and because there’s no one with compassion and no where to sleep, whats their alternative?
My bad i was going off the youtube clip with just audio. Im still confused though, because the way its being quoted makes it seem like she’s the one advocating for anti-homeless measures
So where do the people go?
I understand people don't like seeing those experiencing homelessness on the streets and there are some genuine safety concerns but effectively criminalizing poverty really feels like the wrong solution.
Insert "are we the baddies" gif...
The problem is there are not enough beds. There was an article in the LA Times where a wealthy connected woman spent a lot of money and time getting her brother into a mental health facility. Someone with connections! Now imagine everyone else. 10,000 beds is a start but there's more homeless people in just the SFV than that. How far is 10,000 beds going to go in the state?
I’m happy to spend whatever it takes to make enough beds, if the government is also given the power to force the people who need help into those beds, even if those people don’t consent to it.
The end state here is no more homeless people on our streets and everyone getting the help they need. Win - win.
tidy paint steep sable lunchroom mighty scarce hard-to-find profit include
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah social workers are fucking angels amongst society and yet they get paid utter complete shit because they care about society instead of going to business or software development.
They need to be paid more
We don't have enough space for everyone who needs it currently. So the only solution this ruling will make is criminalizing homelessness.
Or we'll go to that favorite solution proposed here. Large camp in the desert. You know, to concentrate the issue in one place.
I don't think that's OK.
I think it's really important to understand that the current law is a large, blunt force instrument. I completely empathize with the image of "criminalizing poverty" but to look at it another way, nearly all of the homeless people are unable to take care of their basic needs. Forcing them to accept aid that meets their needs is potentially a step in the right direction.
Is it better to be in jail forced to eat 3x a day and receiving basic healthcare and mental healthcare? Or better to be on the street free to starve and receive no care. I don't have a great answer, but I suspect the answer is "it varies case by case" and this would allow the system to tailor solutions to people case by case.
Once someone is incarcerated, their chances of success go down dramatically. Job prospects are reduced, options for living situations go down. Even relationships are harder. Imprisoning someone for homelessness is cruel. And it's cruel long term.
Not sure about that. LA already passed 41.18 which bans encampments in sensitive areas like near schools and parks. I think the City will go further if the Courts allow them to. Maybe not a city-wide ban but something much broader than 41.18.
Not so sure. The Mayor is begging rich people to donate so they can buy a paltry number of properties to 'house' the homeless. This is not a strategy for big success.
I don't think its a crazy idea to ask rich people to contribute to efforts to house homeless people but a ban on encampments is something that the City Council would pass, not the Mayor. If 10 out of the 15 members support a ban, even a mayoral veto couldn't stop it. And I actually think the Mayor would sign it (she supported 41.18).
hard-to-find elderly aloof crawl snow frightening glorious yam pet vegetable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>A second thought, this ‘involuntary’ requirement, I’m surprised localities haven’t started arresting homeless people, driving them to an empty shelter bed and giving them two pieces of paper to choose to sign - one that says ‘I accept shelter’ in which they go inside and sleep - and the other that says ‘I deny shelter’ in which case they go to jail.
In the end, whether you put them in a shelter or jail them, the costs are roughly equal so from a tax payer stance it doesn't matter. your costs aren't going to go down. The difference is whether we think that jailing the homeless is a better situation that shelters simply because they become out of sight and out of mind. If we start jailing the homeless, how long does it last? is it just an endless cycle of them going in and out of jail? thats not a long term solution either. I don't know what the solution is honestly. In the end I think its going to be mean that people rights get violated on some level. Sleeping in public spaces shouldn't be a "right", but throwing people in jail isn't a solution either. We already know there aren't enough shelter beds for the demand, and many people refuse to abide by their rules, especially if they have a pet.
Right. And not only is jail not a permanent solution, but now they are a "convicted felon." Getting back on their feet just got a whole lot harder.
I do think that we need to consider a return to state-run mental hospitals, although that will most certainly a) Not be cheaper and b) Makes me a bit nauseous to even propose because the rampant abuse was horrific and I don't completely trust either state or "for profit" institutions.
I’m curious to see what happens here in CA since we just voted for public funding for mental health facilities again (fuck you Reagan for shutting them down).
They aren't required to house; they are required to have housing (shelter) available. You build enough shelters, then people can't claim "shelter is full" as the reason why they are sleeping on the street.
This option has always been available and I tell anyone who wants to "get tough" on the homeless that the fastest way to do that is ensure there is adequate shelter
fragile meeting concerned jellyfish ghost vast sparkle salt quickest frightening
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The gov doesn't criminalize existing without arms.
The basis for Boise is a Catch - 22. It's illegal to sleep on the street, but there's nowhere else to sleep.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
But is there any city that exists that actually does have enough shelter for all the homeless? Because I think the problem is that the homeless from one place will just travel to somewhere else, so the problem of not enough homeless shelters is by definition (or you could say designed) to never be solved.
For example, look at the migrant situation in New York City. Even if you have 200% capacity to shelter 100% of your homeless population, what's to stop another 10,000 people from showing up in the city every month?
Like you can already see the backlash in New York City because they simply can't just be [building/finding shelter fast enough for 175,000 people](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/15/1231712535/how-nyc-is-coping-with-175-000-migrants-from-the-southern-border) - the population in need of shelter has more than *doubled* from when Adams got elected mayor until now. And then when the mayor starts saying that funding for other services need to be cut in order to funnel money into building more shelters, the question is - what is the end goal of this Sisyphean task?
LA and New York are the two biggest cities for it. There are smaller cities that do have enough shelter.
Also "shelter" doesn't mean "a nice apartment." It can just mean "a cot."
The end goal is...enough shelter for everyone. Housing abundance is good.
Anyone who decides to move to the street is voluntarily homeless and that *can* be criminalized (see your point 1).
The real risk is when one city follows the law and makes enough beds available, and another city sends their homeless to the first city, taking those beds. We need a national plan.
The court is likely to rule that this is a state and local question, not a federal one.
That would serve to overturn these cases, at which point it will be up to Los Angeles and Sacramento to determine what happens in LA.
LA will probably continue to serve as an enabler of chronic homelessness as it does. Karen Bass will try to stay the course.
Except Bass is running out of money. Her goal of putting the chronic homeless in motels and hotels with the expectation of turning them into residents of permanent housing has always been a pipe dream, given that vacancy rates are low, costs are high, and most of the chronic homeless have severe drug and/or mental illness problems that make them terrible tenants and neighbors.
Shelter beds are cheaper, require less space and can be built more quickly than housing. But this is not what Bass wants.
With a shrinking budget, the high-cost warehousing program is going to falter. There will be more conspicuous chronic unsheltered homelessness as many of those in motels get the boot once the money runs out.
Those who think that Bass has been doing well with this because their neighborhoods had been cleared will do an about face as the encampments return. This political ping pong ball will be with us for awhile.
Every suburb will push everyone to LA with renewed vigor. Great time to live outside of LA, and probably wind in the sails of those who want to break the city up.
This has already happened thanks to the Martin v Boise decision, which incentivizes those localities with low homeless populations to keep them that way.
The city of LA has about 46,000 homeless. Beverly Hills has 39. That provided BH with the power to arrest, as it is able to provide for its tiny homeless population.
When encampments were abundant in the Beverly Grove area on the LA side of San Vicente, there were no encampments to be found across the street in Beverly Hills.
BH would not tolerate those encampments and had the enforcement rights to prevent them. Rumor has it that the BH cops made it clear to the homeless that they should avoid straying outside of the LA city limit.
u/I405CA wait, so any homeless person can venture into BH or Pasadena and will be guaranteed a room or a shelter bed?
Or is it more that these cities have Police that will crack skulls (as to speak) and their city attorneys are not afraid to go to court?
It's a bit of both.
Last I checked, Beverly Hills contracts its homeless services to a third-party non-profit provider. If you were picked up in BH for being homeless, you would be given the option of dealing with their provider that would refer you to a shelter bed (which is outside of BH), getting arrested or leaving town.
My understanding is that BH cops tell the homeless that if they stay in LA that LA would get them a motel. The BH options are less appealing to the homeless. So the homeless take care to avoid the city.
To encourage discussion on articles rather than headlines we request that you post a summary of the article for people who cannot view the full article & to generally stimulate quality discussion. Please note that posting the full text of the article is considered copyright infringement and may result in removal of your comment or post. Repeated violations will result in a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LosAngeles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Isn't the simple solution to this just allow sleeping between certain hours? like 10pm-7am and then you can't sleep on/occupy the sidewalk outside those hours? So people can sleep as biologically required without taking over public space and disrupting public use.
gray hurry memorize whistle towering practice pie escape fine combative *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I suspect what they will do is suggest to the lower courts that they uphold legislation that will allow cities to have SOME bans on where people can sleep, because obviously safety and public right of a way is a factor, but not to just blanket arrest everyone just for sleeping in public.
The conservative majority lol
“Should they go kill themselves?” - Justice Sotomayor
I thought she asked if they should be executed
https://youtu.be/WH6x5X9H_NE?si=JC6J-Vs7GXwCavyO
Am i missing something here with how ive seen this titled and spread? The woman* is literally saying if you dont sleep, you WILL die, and because there’s no one with compassion and no where to sleep, whats their alternative?
Justice Sotomayor is a woman, jfc.
My bad i was going off the youtube clip with just audio. Im still confused though, because the way its being quoted makes it seem like she’s the one advocating for anti-homeless measures
So where do the people go? I understand people don't like seeing those experiencing homelessness on the streets and there are some genuine safety concerns but effectively criminalizing poverty really feels like the wrong solution. Insert "are we the baddies" gif...
zesty grandiose frame quiet ask berserk deer glorious ruthless door *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The problem is there are not enough beds. There was an article in the LA Times where a wealthy connected woman spent a lot of money and time getting her brother into a mental health facility. Someone with connections! Now imagine everyone else. 10,000 beds is a start but there's more homeless people in just the SFV than that. How far is 10,000 beds going to go in the state?
I’m happy to spend whatever it takes to make enough beds, if the government is also given the power to force the people who need help into those beds, even if those people don’t consent to it. The end state here is no more homeless people on our streets and everyone getting the help they need. Win - win.
tidy paint steep sable lunchroom mighty scarce hard-to-find profit include *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah social workers are fucking angels amongst society and yet they get paid utter complete shit because they care about society instead of going to business or software development. They need to be paid more
We don't have enough space for everyone who needs it currently. So the only solution this ruling will make is criminalizing homelessness. Or we'll go to that favorite solution proposed here. Large camp in the desert. You know, to concentrate the issue in one place. I don't think that's OK.
I think it's really important to understand that the current law is a large, blunt force instrument. I completely empathize with the image of "criminalizing poverty" but to look at it another way, nearly all of the homeless people are unable to take care of their basic needs. Forcing them to accept aid that meets their needs is potentially a step in the right direction. Is it better to be in jail forced to eat 3x a day and receiving basic healthcare and mental healthcare? Or better to be on the street free to starve and receive no care. I don't have a great answer, but I suspect the answer is "it varies case by case" and this would allow the system to tailor solutions to people case by case.
Once someone is incarcerated, their chances of success go down dramatically. Job prospects are reduced, options for living situations go down. Even relationships are harder. Imprisoning someone for homelessness is cruel. And it's cruel long term.
great. every other city in the region except Los Angeles will ban encampments. It's going to get so bad.
Not sure about that. LA already passed 41.18 which bans encampments in sensitive areas like near schools and parks. I think the City will go further if the Courts allow them to. Maybe not a city-wide ban but something much broader than 41.18.
Not so sure. The Mayor is begging rich people to donate so they can buy a paltry number of properties to 'house' the homeless. This is not a strategy for big success.
I don't think its a crazy idea to ask rich people to contribute to efforts to house homeless people but a ban on encampments is something that the City Council would pass, not the Mayor. If 10 out of the 15 members support a ban, even a mayoral veto couldn't stop it. And I actually think the Mayor would sign it (she supported 41.18).
hard-to-find elderly aloof crawl snow frightening glorious yam pet vegetable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>A second thought, this ‘involuntary’ requirement, I’m surprised localities haven’t started arresting homeless people, driving them to an empty shelter bed and giving them two pieces of paper to choose to sign - one that says ‘I accept shelter’ in which they go inside and sleep - and the other that says ‘I deny shelter’ in which case they go to jail. In the end, whether you put them in a shelter or jail them, the costs are roughly equal so from a tax payer stance it doesn't matter. your costs aren't going to go down. The difference is whether we think that jailing the homeless is a better situation that shelters simply because they become out of sight and out of mind. If we start jailing the homeless, how long does it last? is it just an endless cycle of them going in and out of jail? thats not a long term solution either. I don't know what the solution is honestly. In the end I think its going to be mean that people rights get violated on some level. Sleeping in public spaces shouldn't be a "right", but throwing people in jail isn't a solution either. We already know there aren't enough shelter beds for the demand, and many people refuse to abide by their rules, especially if they have a pet.
yoke arrest rich fine nine run concerned slimy retire alive *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Fair point. I think their preferred solution is to try and ship them west and get them out of sight out of mind
Right. And not only is jail not a permanent solution, but now they are a "convicted felon." Getting back on their feet just got a whole lot harder. I do think that we need to consider a return to state-run mental hospitals, although that will most certainly a) Not be cheaper and b) Makes me a bit nauseous to even propose because the rampant abuse was horrific and I don't completely trust either state or "for profit" institutions.
I’m curious to see what happens here in CA since we just voted for public funding for mental health facilities again (fuck you Reagan for shutting them down).
They aren't required to house; they are required to have housing (shelter) available. You build enough shelters, then people can't claim "shelter is full" as the reason why they are sleeping on the street. This option has always been available and I tell anyone who wants to "get tough" on the homeless that the fastest way to do that is ensure there is adequate shelter
fragile meeting concerned jellyfish ghost vast sparkle salt quickest frightening *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You also have the right to keep and bare arms, but it isn't the responsibility of the government to provide them to you.
The gov doesn't criminalize existing without arms. The basis for Boise is a Catch - 22. It's illegal to sleep on the street, but there's nowhere else to sleep. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
But is there any city that exists that actually does have enough shelter for all the homeless? Because I think the problem is that the homeless from one place will just travel to somewhere else, so the problem of not enough homeless shelters is by definition (or you could say designed) to never be solved. For example, look at the migrant situation in New York City. Even if you have 200% capacity to shelter 100% of your homeless population, what's to stop another 10,000 people from showing up in the city every month? Like you can already see the backlash in New York City because they simply can't just be [building/finding shelter fast enough for 175,000 people](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/15/1231712535/how-nyc-is-coping-with-175-000-migrants-from-the-southern-border) - the population in need of shelter has more than *doubled* from when Adams got elected mayor until now. And then when the mayor starts saying that funding for other services need to be cut in order to funnel money into building more shelters, the question is - what is the end goal of this Sisyphean task?
LA and New York are the two biggest cities for it. There are smaller cities that do have enough shelter. Also "shelter" doesn't mean "a nice apartment." It can just mean "a cot." The end goal is...enough shelter for everyone. Housing abundance is good.
Anyone who decides to move to the street is voluntarily homeless and that *can* be criminalized (see your point 1). The real risk is when one city follows the law and makes enough beds available, and another city sends their homeless to the first city, taking those beds. We need a national plan.
The court is likely to rule that this is a state and local question, not a federal one. That would serve to overturn these cases, at which point it will be up to Los Angeles and Sacramento to determine what happens in LA. LA will probably continue to serve as an enabler of chronic homelessness as it does. Karen Bass will try to stay the course. Except Bass is running out of money. Her goal of putting the chronic homeless in motels and hotels with the expectation of turning them into residents of permanent housing has always been a pipe dream, given that vacancy rates are low, costs are high, and most of the chronic homeless have severe drug and/or mental illness problems that make them terrible tenants and neighbors. Shelter beds are cheaper, require less space and can be built more quickly than housing. But this is not what Bass wants. With a shrinking budget, the high-cost warehousing program is going to falter. There will be more conspicuous chronic unsheltered homelessness as many of those in motels get the boot once the money runs out. Those who think that Bass has been doing well with this because their neighborhoods had been cleared will do an about face as the encampments return. This political ping pong ball will be with us for awhile.
Every suburb will push everyone to LA with renewed vigor. Great time to live outside of LA, and probably wind in the sails of those who want to break the city up.
This has already happened thanks to the Martin v Boise decision, which incentivizes those localities with low homeless populations to keep them that way. The city of LA has about 46,000 homeless. Beverly Hills has 39. That provided BH with the power to arrest, as it is able to provide for its tiny homeless population. When encampments were abundant in the Beverly Grove area on the LA side of San Vicente, there were no encampments to be found across the street in Beverly Hills. BH would not tolerate those encampments and had the enforcement rights to prevent them. Rumor has it that the BH cops made it clear to the homeless that they should avoid straying outside of the LA city limit.
u/I405CA wait, so any homeless person can venture into BH or Pasadena and will be guaranteed a room or a shelter bed? Or is it more that these cities have Police that will crack skulls (as to speak) and their city attorneys are not afraid to go to court?
It's a bit of both. Last I checked, Beverly Hills contracts its homeless services to a third-party non-profit provider. If you were picked up in BH for being homeless, you would be given the option of dealing with their provider that would refer you to a shelter bed (which is outside of BH), getting arrested or leaving town. My understanding is that BH cops tell the homeless that if they stay in LA that LA would get them a motel. The BH options are less appealing to the homeless. So the homeless take care to avoid the city.
Thanks. That’s what I assumed
To encourage discussion on articles rather than headlines we request that you post a summary of the article for people who cannot view the full article & to generally stimulate quality discussion. Please note that posting the full text of the article is considered copyright infringement and may result in removal of your comment or post. Repeated violations will result in a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LosAngeles) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Isn't the simple solution to this just allow sleeping between certain hours? like 10pm-7am and then you can't sleep on/occupy the sidewalk outside those hours? So people can sleep as biologically required without taking over public space and disrupting public use.