Social Can homeless people be fined for sleeping outside? A rural Oregon city asks the US Supreme Court

[DoctorTaco]

I see it as 3 key groups:

1. Have Nots
2. Can Nots
3. Will Nots

And each group needs different treatment:

Give enough subsidies to the Have Nots to keep them from falling off the bottom. Once they get some traction and forward momentum they won’t require further services.

Provide social service workers and treatment for the Can Nots. Help get them sober, on medication if needed, and healthy. From there they will move to one of the two other categories.

And the Will Nots. They can fuck right off. Either get them on a warrant of make their life miserable so they move on.

Republicans tend to think it’s all Will Nots. And the Democrats tend to act like it’s just Have Nots. We need to stop treating homeless people as a monolith.

@Seano all snark aside this is my view on the issue from the front lines of the people’s republic of Portland

 

[RoastBeast]

Been homeless a few times, and yes, the majority are definitely not just down on their luck. Many are addicted, and many also just do not want to work, or live by societal norms. They will talk a good game, about wanting to do something else with their life, but when you tell them how to achieve the desired results, they will not do it. Seems most people who think otherwise simply have not been in the trenches themselves.

That said, I still sympathize with them, as I was there too. Something different needs to happen, because what we do now is not working, and making them pay fines will not fix shit.

Glad to hear you were able to pull yourself out of that situation. I know it can't be easy.

 

[ObsoleteSoul]

Glad to hear you were able to pull yourself out of that situation. I know it can't be easy.

Eh, life is hard for us all. Thanks a lot though.

 

[Sinister]

Been homeless a few times, and yes, the majority are definitely not just down on their luck. Many are addicted, and many also just do not want to work, or live by societal norms. They will talk a good game, about wanting to do something else with their life, but when you tell them how to achieve the desired results, they will not do it. Seems most people who think otherwise simply have not been in the trenches themselves.

That said, I still sympathize with them, as I was there too. Something different needs to happen, because what we do now is not working, and making them pay fines will not fix shit.

I appreciate your feedback. Spent the majority of my early life in various levels of poverty (single Mother, absentee Father, racist Grandparents on her side who didnt want to be involved with assisting on account of she made a baby with a black man). Hurricane Andrew not only rendered us homeless at a time when we were finally ok, but also without access to basic resources for a few months. Zombie apocalypse type sh*t.

I remember there was a moment when my Mother and Aunt were cleaning up the wreckage that was our home and I was just kind of sitting there, unwilling to move. My Mother had little sympathy for giving in to feeling defeated, she always took that as general laziness in her youth (a result of her own parenting). I was 13 and she screamed at me about why I wasn't doing sh*t. I said what's the point? I didnt see a purpose of cleaning up the rubble and keep in mind it all looked like this:



My Mother kicked me out of our...rubble pile. Lol I walked to the shelter where my Grandmother was heading up distribution efforts and it turned out that being around more people was what I needed. Helped out in the kitchen that day, and giving other kids clothes and toys from the donation piles.

People acting like homeless people should just magically get their sh*t together have no clue. And I dont mean you, but this general consensus that the moment someone gets an opportunity they should fly straight merely out of sheer gratitude is misguided. It takes time to erase the trauma and habits of hopelessness, and I'm not sure if they ever actually are fixed. That's why continued support is a huge part of reintegration back into "normal" society.

 

[ObsoleteSoul]

I appreciate your feedback. Spent the majority of my early life in various levels of poverty (single Mother, absentee Father, racist Grandparents on her side who didnt want to be involved with assisting on account of she made a baby with a black man). Hurricane Andrew not only rendered us homeless at a time when we were finally ok, but also without access to basic resources for a few months. Zombie apocalypse type sh*t.

I remember there was a moment when my Mother and Aunt were cleaning up the wreckage that was our home and I was just kind of sitting there, unwilling to move. My Mother had little sympathy for giving in to feeling defeated, she always took that as general laziness in her youth (a result of her own parenting). I was 13 and she screamed at me about why I wasn't doing sh*t. I said what's the point? I didnt see a purpose of cleaning up the rubble and keep in mind it all looked like this:



My Mother kicked me out of our...rubble pile. Lol I walked to the shelter where my Grandmother was heading up distribution efforts and it turned out that being around more people was what I needed. Helped out in the kitchen that day, and giving other kids clothes and toys from the donation piles.

People acting like homeless people should just magically get their sh*t together have no clue. And I dont mean you, but this general consensus that the moment someone gets an opportunity they should fly straight merely out of sheer gratitude is misguided. It takes time to erase the trauma and habits of hopelessness, and I'm not sure if they ever actually are fixed. That's why continued support is a huge part of reintegration back into "normal" society.

Agree with all your points. It’s is definitely not a straight line, I can attest to that.

Just we have to meet somewhere in the middle. I know it’s anecdotal, but in my experience of being homeless in several cities; most seem to want to be there. Or, they understand they will never get out of their situation unless they make drastic changes. Change is hard, man. You cannot force it on someone. They have to really want to change. Most seem to only want what others have, at no cost to themselves. If that makes sense.

It is sad to hear about your past too. Though at least you experienced that all through an “act of god” and not your parent just being a damn fool. I’ll tell you, that sucks much more. Or, I imagine it would. At least then you wouldn’t necessarily just hate your rents for ruining your childhood and such. Though it made me never want to be them, and that pushed me along in life.

Either way, some change has to happen if we wish to really help more of these people. I wish I were a more intelligent man with the answers, but unfortunately , that is just not me…

 

[Sinister]

Agree with all your points. It’s is definitely not a straight line, I can attest to that.

Just we have to meet somewhere in the middle. I know it’s anecdotal, but in my experience of being homeless in several cities; most seem to want to be there. Or, they understand they will never get out of their situation unless they make drastic changes. Change is hard, man. You cannot force it on someone. They have to really want to change. Most seem to only want what others have, at no cost to themselves. If that makes sense.

It is sad to hear about your past too. Though at least you experienced that all through an “act of god” and not your parent just being a damn fool. I’ll tell you, that sucks much more. Or, I imagine it would. At least then you wouldn’t necessarily just hate your rents for ruining your childhood and such. Though it made me never want to be them, and that pushed me along in life.

Either way, some change has to happen if we wish to really help more of these people. I wish I were a more intelligent man with the answers, but unfortunately , that is just not me…

Well, the poverty was also a direct result of an unwillingness to participate of my Father. As for the act of God aspect, man it's weird. It can be better because, like you said, it's not the result of someone who is supposed to protect you, failing you. But at the same time it can shake your idea of faith and merit to its core. It's a harsh lesson in that many times horrible things happen to very good people who never hurt anyone, and it wasnt visibly part of some larger plan for their over all good. It sucked, many of them died, and that's that.

 

[ObsoleteSoul]

Well, the poverty was also a direct result of an unwillingness to participate of my Father. As for the act of God aspect, man it's weird. It can be better because, like you said, it's not the result of someone who is supposed to protect you, failing you. But at the same time it can shake your idea of faith and merit to its core. It's a harsh lesson in that many times horrible things happen to very good people who never hurt anyone, and it wasnt visibly part of some larger plan for their over all good. It sucked, many of them died, and that's that.

I can see that. Definitely. Honestly, never really thought of it that way. We were the poor stinky kids at our church, and they let us know. Often. So there was no shaking of faith for me lol. Knew it was a sham for as long as I can remember. Well, I thought/think it is.

Keep caring about and helping those in need. We might not agree on many things, but we can agree on that much.

 

[Sinister]

Threw away her Son's ashes:

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Homeless woman was living inside Michigan rooftop store sign with computer and coffee maker​

BY ED WHITE
Updated 2:44 PM BRT, May 9, 2024

Contractors curious about an extension cord on the roof of a Michigan grocery store made a startling discovery: A 34-year-old woman was living inside the business sign, with enough space for a computer, printer and coffee maker, police said.
“She was homeless,” Officer Brennon Warren of the Midland Police Department said Thursday. “It’s a story that makes you scratch your head, just somebody living up in a sign.”

The woman, whose name was not released, told police she had a job elsewhere but had been living inside the Family Fare sign for roughly a year, Warren said. She was found April 23.
Midland, best known as the global home of Dow Inc., is 130 miles (209 kilometers) north of Detroit.

The Family Fare store is in a retail strip with a triangle-shaped sign at the top of the building. The sign structure, probably 5 feet (1.5 meter) wide and 8 feet (2.4 meters) high, has a door and is accessible from the roof, Warren said.
“There was some flooring that was laid down. A mini desk,” he said. “Her clothing. A Keurig coffee maker. A printer and a computer — things you’d have in your home.”

The woman was able to get electricity through a power cord plugged into an outlet on the roof, Warren said.

There was no sign of a ladder. Warren said it’s possible the woman made her way to the roof by climbing up elsewhere behind the store or other retail businesses.

“I honestly don’t know how she was getting up there. She didn’t indicate, either,” he said.

A spokesperson for SpartanNash, the parent company of Family Fare, said store employees responded “with the utmost compassion and professionalism.”

“Ensuring there is ample safe, affordable housing continues to be a widespread issue nationwide that our community needs to partner in solving,” Adrienne Chance said, declining further comment.

Warren said the woman was cooperative and quickly agreed to leave. No charges were pursued.

“We provided her with some information about services in the area,” the officer said. “She apologized and continued on her way. Where she went from there, I don’t know.”

The director of a local nonprofit that provides food and shelter assistance said Midland — which has a population 42,000 — needs more housing for low-income residents.

“From someone who works with the homeless, part of me acknowledges she was really resourceful,” said Saralyn Temple of Midland’s Open Door. “Obviously, we don’t want people resorting to illegal activity to find housing. There are much better options.”

https://apnews.com/article/michigan-store-rooftop-sign-homeless-0185c0d7e4cd7a2f8581e8b8e0eb01b7​

 

[Madmick]

Portland, Oregon, OKs New Homeless Camping Rules That Threaten Fines or Jail in Some Cases​

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Homeless people who camp on public property in Portland, Oregon, and reject offers of shelter could be fined up to $100 or sentenced to up to seven days in jail under new rules approved unanimously by the City Council on Wednesday.

When shelter is not available, the same penalties apply for blocking sidewalks, using gas heaters or starting fires, or having belongings more than 2 feet (0.6 meters) outside of tents.
The ordinance takes effect immediately, and enforcement is set to begin in the coming weeks, Mayor Ted Wheeler's office said.

“Addressing the issue of unsheltered homelessness in our city is a complex and urgent matter, and I believe this ordinance represents a significant step forward in our ongoing efforts to manage public spaces effectively,” Wheeler said in a statement.

Those who accept offers of shelter won't be cited, according to Wheeler's office. For those who are cited, the courts will determine whether to waive fines.

https://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2024/05/09/47194102/portland-approves-new-public-camping-ordinance-after-facing-legal-pressure

With police being the primary driver of enforcement, the city's ordinance requires Portland Police Bureau to collect and report data on the demographics and frequency of arrests made under the new public camping codes.

Wednesday’s vote was the second reading of an ordinance initially released by Wheeler’s office, then amended by Commissioners Carmen Rubio and Mingus Mapps. Three amendments pitched by Commissioner Rene Gonzalez failed to garner enough votes to move forward. The council first discussed the new ordinance two weeks ago, after hearing more than two hours of public testimony.

Despite the council’s unanimous approval, Gonzalez, who previously pushed for an outright ban on public camping and fines up to $1,000, reiterated his objections to the code changes. Gonzalez asserted the new codes are overly complex, and won’t reduce the number of encampments in the city.

“Unelected attorneys for well-funded homeless advocates seem to have more influence on this code than the office of the commissioner for public safety,” the commissioner said, referring to himself. He argued the city’s rules should align with neighboring cities that don’t allow public camping, like Gresham. Unlike Portland, Gresham doesn’t fine or penalize people for sleeping in public.

Gonzalez suggested the city was better when it didn’t allow unhoused residents to sleep in public...

Portland is currently constrained by a state law passed in 2021 that requires any local ordinance regulating the activity of homeless people to be “objectively reasonable as to time, place, and manner” of sitting or resting in public. The city is also bound by a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the landmark Martin v. Boise case. In that case, the federal appeals court ruled that cities can’t prohibit people from sleeping outside if there is no available shelter for them.

“While I realize there are people who wish that we could act in a stronger manner, and in a more forceful manner, it would be in violation of Martin v. Boise and it would be in violation of House Bill 3115,” Wheeler, who got the last word before the final vote, said.

Even the Portland City Council is unanimous in desiring to more forcibly address the homeless issue. The only thing hindering them are judges and prior court rulings.

So, be sure, those will be next. Fate hanges in the balance with the Grant's Pass ruling. I'm fairly confident the federal Supreme Court will get it right, and with side with the city of Grant's Pass. Even the most liberal cities realize the liberal kid gloves approach to the issue was the wrong one.

 

[avenue94]

The only thing hindering them are judges and prior court rulings.

That's certainly one way of saying these efforts are being hindered by glaring constitutional violations (unless the Supreme Court decides to invent a bullshit originalist reading of US history)

 

[ferrisjso]

Yeah, that’s why I said it’s unpalatable. It’s cheaper to not do anything.

For states and municipalties sure.

For the federal govt they print their currency and have unlimited resources its no big deal. This is why MMT education is so important it changes the federal govts failure to provide for its people from a unfortunate resource limitation to intentional violence.

States and municipalities are logistically dumb because they collect tax money but will never have enough to actually solve their regions problems.

 

[Madmick]

That's certainly one way of saying these efforts are being hindered by glaring constitutional violations (unless the Supreme Court decides to invent a bullshit originalist reading of US history)

LOL, why am I not surprised you'd favor the argument that municipalities shouldn't be allowed to preclude outdoor public camping within their city limits because it's "unusually cruel punishment" according to the 8th Amendment.

By all means, explain how that Herculean spin makes sense.

 

[Andy Capp]

LOL, why am I not surprised you'd favor the argument that municipalities shouldn't be allowed to preclude outdoor public camping within their city limits because it's "unusually cruel punishment" according to the 8th Amendment.

By all means, explain how that Herculean spin makes sense.

Pan's posts ITT address this fairly thoroughly.

 

[Sinister]

This video on Lackluster shows what's wrong with vagrancy/loitering laws and should set off alarm bells for anyone who thinks it's a good idea for Cops to constantly be able to decide how long a person can be in a public space on the street level. They are hassling this guy because he is a known Cop-watcher, and their premise for doing so is "you dont belong here, you're loitering:"

 

[avenue94]

LOL, why am I not surprised you'd favor the argument that municipalities shouldn't be allowed to preclude outdoor public camping within their city limits because it's "unusually cruel punishment" according to the 8th Amendment.

By all means, explain how that Herculean spin makes sense.

Pretty simple logic. If shelter is unavailable, I think it's inhuman to ban someone from sleeping in public or having a blanket or pillow, which is what the original ordinance banned. The broadness of these laws also give me due process and 1st Amendment concerns given these laws would be enforced very unevenly. I'm in general not a fan of loitering and anti-vagrancy laws, they're constitutional abominations.

I'll also point out the contradiction of supreme court justice who claim to be originalists arguing that camping on public land should be banned or regulated like this given the country's long history of people camping and sleeping wherever they want on public land.

 

[Sinister]

Pretty simple logic. If shelter is unavailable, I think it's inhuman to ban someone from sleeping in public or having a blanket or pillow, which is what the original ordinance banned. The broadness of these laws also give me due process and 1st Amendment concerns given these laws would be enforced very unevenly. I'm in general not a fan of loitering and anti-vagrancy laws, they're constitutional abominations.

I'll also point out the contradiction of supreme court justice who claim to be originalists arguing that camping on public land should be banned or regulated like this given the country's long history of people camping and sleeping wherever they want on public land.

Wasnt the initial case that spurred this a woman who was sleeping in her car in Grant's Pass?

 

[DoctorTaco]

Portland, Oregon, OKs New Homeless Camping Rules That Threaten Fines or Jail in Some Cases​

https://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2024/05/09/47194102/portland-approves-new-public-camping-ordinance-after-facing-legal-pressure

Even the Portland City Council is unanimous in desiring to more forcibly address the homeless issue. The only thing hindering them are judges and prior court rulings.

So, be sure, those will be next. Fate hanges in the balance with the Grant's Pass ruling. I'm fairly confident the federal Supreme Court will get it right, and with side with the city of Grant's Pass. Even the most liberal cities realize the liberal kid gloves approach to the issue was the wrong one.

The vast, vast majority of Portlanders want reasonable, logical laws in place regarding homelessness and camping in public.

If you spend any time on the Portland Sub Reddit you’ll see even there on a fairly left leaning website everybody generally agrees That punishing people for breaking laws and for making the city more dangerous is a good thing.

We all want common sense laws on these issues.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

People acting like homeless people should just magically get their sh*t together have no clue. And I dont mean you, but this general consensus that the moment someone gets an opportunity they should fly straight merely out of sheer gratitude is misguided. It takes time to erase the trauma and habits of hopelessness, and I'm not sure if they ever actually are fixed. That's why continued support is a huge part of reintegration back into "normal" society.

- I never thought about that. A Pstd from being homeless, is a good question!

 

[Jesus X]

Those unpaid tickets would turn to warrants so you would have to jail every single homeless person with unpaid tickets basically which would be all of them.