The high court’s ruling is already having a ripple effect on cities across the country, which have been emboldened to take harsher measures to clear out homeless camps that have grown in the aftermath of the pandemic.
Many US cities have been wrestling with how to combat the growing crisis. The issue has been at the heart of recent election cycles on the West Coast, where officials have poured record amounts of money into creating shelters and building affordable housing.
Leaders face mounting pressure as long-term solutions - from housing and shelters to voluntary treatment services and eviction help - take time.
“It’s not easy and it will take a time to put into place solutions that work, so there’s a little bit of political theatre going on here," Scout Katovich, an attorney who focuses on these issues for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told the BBC.
"Politicians want to be able to say they’re doing something,”
To whoever wrote the headline: How can it possibly help?
It “helps” the NIMBYs who want them off the streets by any means necessary.
The irony here is that housing-first strategies are the best way to do that. They’re also the one these asshats are against.
These sorts of “concerned citizens” are happy to give the homeless a prison cell for a home.
Not saying I agree with this position, but I’ll pass along the argument that CA’s governor makes.
CA has a lot of empty shelter beds, and they couldn’t clear some camps unless they had enough beds to house everyone. It was all or nothing. They couldn’t say “we have enough beds in the county for half of the encampments, so we’ll only clear the half that have the largest public health and safety problems.”
Basically, CA only wants to jail people if a bed exists and isn’t being used. Problem is, some states / counties will look at this broad ruling and will just people in jail, bed or not.
Also, this ruling doesn’t account for shelter quality. Sometimes the street is actually safer than a shelter, and arresting a person for prioritizing safety is pretty shitty.
I know it sounds rational but that’s not a good faith argument from the governor. What he wants is to be able to force people into subpar living conditions instead of making shelters and temporary housing actually work.
It’s just another way for them to use the police while telling everyone they’re really actually helping.
Doesn’t California notoriously have an extreme shortage of shelter beds? I’ve heard it compared unfavorable to New York this way plenty of times.
Overall the state has a major shortage of beds. Cities and counties across California reported in 2023 a little more than 71,131 beds in either an emergency shelter or transitional housing. The state would need more than twice that number to accommodate everyone.
http://calmatters.org/explainers/californias-homelessness-crisis-explained/
Yes. CA only has enough beds for half of the unhoused population, but significantly less than half of the unhoused population is claiming a bed.
For example, even though San Francisco and Oakland have fewer beds than unhoused people, last year SF had 10% of its beds empty and a few years before that, Oakland was coming in at 36% vacant. I don’t know what the current numbers are.
I don’t agree with this policy, but CA wants to jail people when there is a vacancy and someone is refusing to take the bed. Before this court ruling, CA could not do that.
Was it written by a human with no sense or by an AI (also with no sense)? 🤔
It’s the BBC, so I’m giving the benefit of doubt that it was just written by a really out of touch human. The actual article is pretty good coverage and highlights why it’s such a terrible decision.
The only thing in the article that even slightly implies “help” is this line:
Jailing the homeless? ‘At least I’ll have a bed’
So, headline seems to be intentionally click/rage bait even though the article itself is pretty sound.
While we’re at it, maybe we can solve the healthcare crisis by punishing sickness!
Jesus. How could locking up homeless folk make things better? The headline is bad, and the article is not informative.
It puts more people in prison, making private prisons’ income better. This kind of shit is never about helping anyone but the lobbyists.
I can only speak to Portland, but entirely too many people here refuse shelter for a variety of reasons, #1 being they can’t bring their drugs and alcohol with them.
What this does is strongly encourage people to accept the help when offered.
You know what actually strongly ecourages people to accept help? Housing-first policies.
Yeah, because that works out so well…
What this does is strongly encourage people to accept the help when offered.
Because people have the FREEDOM to choose.
I would think that fundamental right would be fucking obvious.
When they’re doing fentanyl and pissing and shitting in the streets they’ve abdicated personal freedom.
“…entirely too many people here refuse shelter for a variety of reasons…”
Have you ever spent time in a shelter? Like tried to sleep there? Undoubtedly no. Because if you had you’d know that the only way they are tolerable and the only way you can block out that they are obviously unsafe, noisy, and completely not conducive to good sleep is to dull your pain with drugs or alcohol.
You are better off on the street.
The street, which is obviously unsafe, noisy, completely not conducive to good sleep, and open to the elements.
Storming the Bastille was done (in part) to free prisoners who were being indefinitely held for reasons related to being poor. I’m mostly just bringing that up because history has lots of interesting themes we should all be considering in our decision making during daily life.
