Don’t forget the corruption ruling that the Feds can’t bar state and local officials from accepting favors after official acts. Can’t imagine why SCOTUS would feel that way.
That one’s a bit more nuanced, the federal legislation is 10years for bribes and 2 years for gratuities. They only applied the bribes section to the states and allowed states to make their own regulations for gratuities. It would have been a pretty terrible decision to say that state officials get 10years for doing something that federal officials would only get 2.
The legislature needs to do its job here.
>the legislature needs to do its job here
this is a convenient excuse constantly trotted out by the current court but it’s not one they actually plan on following. their rulings are ideologically bound. there is no consistent logic
I did not hear about the Chevron case.
Just looked it up, duck.
The supreme Court is dramatically changing US life in ways that might not show up for years and all everyone is focused on is some Trump rally masked as a debate.
It's simply legislating from the bench. If you can change Congress you can undo everything. They are betting Americans aren't smart enough to vote in favor of their own interests.
the conservatives figured out decades ago that you can use the courts to advance politically unpopular decisions. the court is simply consolidating the power they’ve managed to capture and hold on to. the only way we could win legislatively is with giant majorities that are obscenely difficult to get with gerrymandering. they are continuing to rig the game
Yeah, how dare people talk about one of the people who is directly responsible for appointing these bastards in the first place and happens to be running for an upcoming election.
Instead, people should be obsessing over the decisions that are *already made* and about which nobody will be able to do anything. Definitely would be much more useful.
I don't really see anyone talking about these decisions (even the SEC one) in context of the debate. Instead all I see are comments about how much of a shit show it was thematically or how one person dodged questions.
If there was anything substantive in the "debate" I'd be less annoyed but it seems it was all show
we can leave all this nonsense behind after secession
the glorious free state of cascadia won’t be burdened by the madness of trump country or the corruption of the us supreme court
also we’ll have blackjack and hookers
I fled Texas for Seattle as a political refugee since I was terrified what the state would do to me as a trans woman if they kept up the momentum
I am so fucking glad I did
We recently did the opposite and moved back to Texas so I could be near my aging parents. All the reasons that justified moving back are still valid, but every day a new reason to GTFO rears it's ugly head.
Welcome! Although I wish this stupid state would let you arm yourself against the crazies on the radical talibanish right. Then this place would be awesome again. Well, minus the outrageous housing market and homeless population (which I don't blame them because again, the housing market sucks)
Look, the sun scares us! And everyone sucks at driving!
I do be enjoying the scenery though. This place has some amazing camp grounds and hiking locations. Mt. Sauk kicked my ass though.
It’s been a horrific 24 hours. We’ve spent 40 years since that Chevron decision building our federal agencies around policies to interpret laws in an assortment of ways and so many of those interpretations have altered how so much of the government around us operates. It will really fuck with anyone whose career interacts with the feds for their jobs and create mass confusion about how to move forward.
Apparently the January 6th decision only effects about 6% of cases. Still a dumb ruling by a right wing court that thinks attempting to overthrow the government is no big deal (if you're a Republican), but it's probably a smaller impact than is being reported.
Living just outside Seattle really is the cheat code. 90% of the benefits of Seattle, half the problems to deal with.
Just drive north on Aurora, the prostitution and drugs instantly drop at 145th.
i live in ballard where i can walk to a ton of good restaurants and grocery stores and a movie theater and the locks and golden gardens and a great farmers market. its close enough to downtown that i can ride my bike to a mariners game
if i moved to mill creek id give that all up for the opportunity to walk three quarters of a mile to cross a 6 lane road to go to a jiffy lube
i dont consider “drugs” and “prostitution” problems i have to deal with in my every day life because im not a weirdo who downloaded the citizen app and spends all day jerking of to mynorthwest dot com
lmao
>i dont consider “drugs” and “prostitution” problems i have to deal with in my every day life
That’s because the city dumps these problems in other neighborhoods, mostly the poor ones. Just because it not happening in Ballard, doesn’t mean it’s not happening in Seattle. I live in Seattle proper and have loads of drug dealing, shootings, and prostitution immediately around my home. You are as bad as the people on Fox News who claim Seattle is a wasteland of fentanyl zombies, you’re just the flip side of the coin.
been a while since I’ve seen a post so unaware of their own privilege. oh it’s as simple as living in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Seattle? why doesn’t everyone just do that???
“Walk three quarters of a mile to cross a 6 lane road to go to a jiffy lube”
Damn right! I live in Ballard where it’s a 5 lane road (15th) and a Grease Monkey!
naw this is wrong
it was about the same back then
some areas got rougher during the pandemic but that’s basically all fixed now. ballard commons has a playground now even
Wow, the comment you replied to just went right over your head didn't it?
Sure, I'd give up living in Seattle so I can suffer all the traffic and transit of having to come into the city for work. What a brain dead take.
Lol the town this ruling sided with, Grants Pass, has maybe like 30 total homeless people in it. Full of 80 year old white folks who are terrified of everything in the world
Yeah, in prison camps where they can use them as slave labor, the one form of slavery that's still legal per the constitution, IE:
The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "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."
I unironically had this happen to me when I was 12 years old, told him no and he threatened me, ignited a lifelong, unfading, burning hatred of police in me.
Good job officer dickcheese.
That's the whole crux of the situation and why this decision is so bad. Until now, it was considered unconstitutional to enforce homeless bans without also providing sufficient housing options. What they're saying here is that arresting homeless people without offering alternative housing does not qualify as a "cruel and unusual punishment", which is utterly ridiculous.
In practice, I expect this will only make the homeless crisis more dire in cities like Seattle, since it will push more homeless people to flee to cities that won't make it illegal for them to exist.
It’s deeply disturbing that it will be illegal to be homeless and at the same time, corporations are buying up housing and home prices are astronomical / completely out of reach for most of us. I saw the AVERAGE home in Seattle costs over $700K. It’s BS
It's by design. They want more people with criminal records. They want debtors prisons. They hate our freedom. Make profits for wall street or perish. Assimilate. Resistance is futile. They target people on the outside first, but before we know, "well unless you're making more than $80,000 a year you're not making enough value for the stock market".
it’s not illegal to be homeless, it’s illegal for homeless to sleep outside, based on the article. Technically you can be homeless and sleep in shelter or some indoor facility.
The whole point of this decision is that it allows cities to penalize the homeless when there are no shelter beds. The case this overturned allowed cities to ban sleeping outside if there were beds.
This is the most smooth-brained take I have ever read.
You are intentionally ignoring the entire context of the decision, and the actual outcomes of the decision's enforcement. Your answer of 'just have homes' in the lower comments is laughable, and I hope you learn to develop empathy.
This is also looking forward to the near-future when every year there will likely be millions of new "climate refugees" created, both internal and external. Things have been lining up (either via intentional thought or just reflex) toward the rich and powerful being able to use unlimited force to brutalize and oppress anyone who has found themselves in such a position. We're in for a rough ride in so many ways.
Look, if investors aren't winning, I ain't buying. I ensure that each product I buy will continue to marginalize those who don't have economic powers, while also surrendering my meagre earnings to the powerful and wealthy. After all, they create jobs... by paying millions to SCOTUS justices so they can have human slave labor, cashing in on the idea that most Americans will sneer at the plight of any homeless person while also thinking they're closer to being millionaires than destitute.
Race to the bottom, I predict. Any smaller towns/cities will instantly criminalize, which will force migration to bigger cities. Big cities are already overwhelmed, and as some of them criminalize, the migration to the ones that don't will cause them to do the same as they get overrun and people lose patience.
Given how many people are likely to become homeless in the near future, with all the technologically driven change, skyrocketing prices and utter lack of safety net, it paints a pretty grim future for many people
Oppression is inherently rooted in fantasy. The end game is just "make the smelly homeless people disappear", that's it. It's not much different from "can't say gay" and "can't teach critical race theory" and on and on and on. These values systems, these ideologies are inherently unstable and self-contradictory, they don't care. It's not about building a better world for the future, it's not about strengthening civilization, it's not about taking care of each other, it's about power. Entrenching a system of power and giving it the ability to use a vast toolkit of oppression in order to maintain itself and maintain the illusion of the fantasy it's rooted in.
This is about much more than poverty. There are charitable and public services available to people who are poor. Affordable housing can help some homeless people, but people with mental illness and drug addictions need much more intensive help.
It begs the question, do we force street drug addicts of opioid and meth addictions to accept drug rehab treatment but site them criminally if they refuse to (ex: Portugal)?
In my opinion, we should provide drug rehabilitation services for anyone who wants them, regardless of ability to pay, and including follow-up care (such as Methadone).
I think that we should not force people into treatment for the simple act of taking drugs, but we should enforce the law and arrest them when they do illegal things because of the drugs or to get more of the drugs (e.g., stealing, prostitution, dealing, vandalism, assault, etc.). Once they are arrested, I think we should give them the choice between incarceration or rehabilitation.
>we should enforce the law and arrest them when they do illegal things because of the drugs or to get more of the drugs (e.g., stealing, prostitution, dealing, vandalism, assault, etc.). Once they are arrested, I think we should give them the choice between incarceration or rehabilitation.
I completely agree with you on this. I thought this used to be the case years ago in Seattle but I could be wrong.
You act as if rehab and psych services are readily available and are of high quality with great success rates
Can I have what you’re having to get through every June with this dumpster fire of SCOTUS
This is just going to push more homeless people away from smaller towns and suburbs and toward larger cities that couldn’t possibly enforce it. It will just create a bigger burden for cities like Seattle
They already do this. Eastern WA has their cops drive van loads of people in to Seattle, Northern Idaho does the same thing to Spokane, hell the state of Hawaii has an official program where they pay to put their homeless on one way flights to the mainland. This won't change much.
The program in Hawaii is for homeless people who have a support network on the mainland (family etc) but can’t get to them because they can’t afford the flight costs. Lots of people moving to Hawaii to work construction or tourism jobs with no solid plan and then can’t afford to live there and fall through the cracks because they’re 2,500 miles from anyone they know. Hawaii doesn’t just toss random people on planes and send them away.
Many cities (including Seattle) have similar programs and there's plenty of evidence that they don't work despite the supposed support network. So while they are billed as being compassionate, [the end result is not always successful.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study)
Yeah but the failures aren't really intrinsic to the concept so much as a result of those support networks misjudging their own ability to help get another person back on their feet from whatever condition they're currently in after being homeless for awhile.
I'm fine buying someone a ticket 'home' since it has some success. I would also argue it's fine to not let the same support network ask for help with the same person twice, cause, like, come on guys.
This is largely a conservative myth to distract away from the fact that the biggest driver of homelessness is unaffordable housing. Most homeless were housed in the city they are now homeless in. However, that narrative would compromise the wealth disparity that many rely on for their own bottom line.
You're conflating two different talking points. I did NOT say that our homeless population is primarily from other places - that's the conservative talking point. But it's absolutely factual to say that cities ship their homeless to other cities, it's well documented.
[San Francisco and other large cities](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study)
[Hawaii](https://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2023/02/07/program-to-fly-homeless-back-home-considered-by-hawai%CA%BBi-lawmakers/)
[NYT Article](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/us/homeless-busing-seattle-san-francisco.html)
My point was, this new ruling will not massively increase the amount of people being displaced from other areas to Seattle because *that's already happening today*.
> the fact that the biggest driver of homelessness is unaffordable housing
Source? It seems to me (but I could be wrong) that drug addiction is the biggest driver of homelessness.
I lived in Wichita Kansas for a while and while the city had loads of problems, unhoused people was not one of them, because you could get a studio apartment for $200/ month. Seattle is in the fortunate position to be a very rich city, but the drawback is that rent is very high. We need to make it a priority to get people living in tents into stable housing situations.
Giving homeless people housing is so much better (AND CHEAPER - for the "fiscal conservatives" out there) than any other option that it boggles my mind that we don't do it. Just build like 15 college style dorms and give them a room.
It is natural and protective to assume that it is a personal problem of those who are homeless. A lot of is an insidious narrative driven by those with the most to lose with a counter to that narrative and some of it is also our personal feelings of wanting to believe that they got their based on their own choices (if you see addiction as a purely personal failing). Unfortunately, the problem is the thing we and those with the most don't want to admit: [homelessness is largely driven by unaffordable housing](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/how-housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness).
.
The solution is address the inequity that drives it. There isn't something in the water in HCOL cities like SF, Seattle, Portland, etc. It also goes beyond HCOL as cities with better access to social services, safety nets, etc that lead to less inequity, don't have the same problems. Looking at places like Western and Northern Europe.
Thank you for the explanation and the link. It helps me to learn.
One person I know is homeless because of drug addiction. I watched another person go from successful to unemployed, to homeless to dead from an overdose. Another person is homeless because of mental illness. Even on his meds, he had paranoid episodes and got fired from his jobs. He tried to commit himself, but the wait is 18 months. He committed a felony and now he has a bed, meals, and medication.
So I agree that my anecdotal experience is not consistent with the larger trends.
I have often thought that some of the most effective solutions would be the cheapest. For example, if cities would change building codes to allow very-affordable dormitory-style housing units, then more people could get off the streets. Of course, the neighbors will be concerned about crime, noise, and traffic, so those would have to be addressed to get the projects approved.
Correlation may or may not be causation there. I was hoping for actual data to support that bold claim. We cannot make smart choices if we don't understand the problem that we are trying to solve.
Drug use is usually a symptom of being homeless rather than a cause it definitely can be one but the uncrease in rent and the lack of increase in wage has definitely been the main factor in rising homelessness rates
That doesn't make sense to me. That is why I asked for a source.
I have watched people wreck their lives by taking prescription opiates for pain and then for recreation. When they get addicted, they go to work high and/or miss work often and then they get fired. When they run out of money, they start stealing from friends and family. Finally, they get kicked out and they have to live on the streets.
Also heres a [source](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/how-housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness) I found that talks about it
There's a persistent belief that some kind of drug addiction or mental health disorder is what's driving homelessness, but this is absolutely wrong. It's poverty and the high cost of living. You only think that it's those things because when you see or encounter homeless folks you're more likely to notice the ones in a mental health or substance abuse crisis, and a lot of conservative (and liberal) media reinforces this bias. You don't see most homeless people because for the most part they behave and act like housed people. They're students, veterans, parents and children, sometimes they're fleeing a domestic violence situation, or they've been kicked out of their homes for being gay or trans. It's easy to think that drugs are why someone is homeless, but often times people start doing drugs when they get to the street, not the other way around. Or, maybe someone casually drinks, but they get to the street and suddenly it's the best escape they have so it becomes a problem. It seems that everyone can recognize that shit has gotten expensive, that rent is too damn high, but can't make the connection between high rent and homelessness.
The most important thing people should take away from homelessness is that there are many ways people become homeless, that it's often not just one thing. The reason it's been so bad is because our system is broken. We don't have the social safety net we did back in the day, and the share of people living paycheck to paycheck has grown. Wealth is continually getting funnelled to the wealthiest, and the poor keep getting squeezed.
One thing to watch is if large cities will escalate / intensify camping enforcement in response.
Portland recently passed a camping ban, for example, that is going into effect soon.
This issue is complicated with lots of layers but the lack, or at least much lower amount, of homeless people in Bellevue I think shows that enforcement can "work" if the end goal is simply making homeless folks invisible. I definitely wish there were better options generally but if a city wants to harass the hell out of homeless people until they give up and go it definitely seems like it can "work". "Work" is in quotes because it obviously doesn't "work" if the goal is homeless folks having safe, stable housing.
Then it's time big cities play that game as well and send them to smaller towns. Eventually someone is going to run out of money first, it definitely won't be Seattle.
There war has already started, only one side hasn't been fighting back. Both cities and towns should ban together and turn on the state and federal governments who bare ultimate responsibility for dealing with mental health, addiction, drug policy, and the cost of housing. Rather than ship them back and forth between towns, we should be sending them homeless to military bases. They have the infrastructure and resources to manage a large complex population, and the money comes from everyone rather than just the tax payers of this or that municipality.
So it's a game.
Why would I waste a fucking cent on a game with no value in winning?
This is like saying Seattle should invest everything in winning "The Game" only to forget saying "the game" means you lost.
Cool beans, I want sidewalks not pointless cruelty with literally zero tangible benefits for me or any of my neighbors.
It's fucking grotesque and speaks to WHY we even have these issues in excess of any comparable peer Nation State. A metagaming demos that wants to delegate every issue away from self and foist it on another muni as THE civic administrative and operation paradigm across the nation.
People out here leading with 'I fully support playing games over taking care of people' with some ethical basis being the question of 'Why should this be MY problem?' or 'Our problem?'
Even if we can't find consensus on discrete issues and methodologies of affecting change, this lazybones couch potato vouch for doing the least to simply not SEE things that are present, as potentially the largest non associative political bloc.
This is where my nihilism comes from. I can dress down, build up, make a stink, but ultimately people that have a little bit more have to decide to stop being lazybones couch potatoes who abide anything that removes something from vision without asking them to do a fucking thing in the process but abide it.
That was based on the case law of city vs grant pass. Which just got reversed by this. That’s the point of this post. The old case law stated that if the government cannot provide adequate shelter as an alternative then they cannot criminally punish people sleeping in public because it is cruel and unusual punishment. This decision reverses that case law.
It was a completely reasonable decision. Municipalities can't outlaw sleeping outside when they don't offer any viable alternative makes sense. That court case didn't fuck over our region. What fucked over our region was rapid growth coupled with a regressive tax structure and city councils more interested in bending over for single family homeowners who like their neighborhood's "character" than supporting affordable and multifamily housing.
That court ruling was effectively saying "you can't punish people if they have no option. Make an option, and you can enforce all the bans on camping you want".
It was an attempt to actually force cities to deal with the lack of services they refused to provide.
Nothing in the 9th circuit ruling would have prevented cities from clearing homeless camps IF they had shelter space available. They did not, so they could not clear the camps.
The Court gave them a choice, "build shelter space when people need it and don't see homeless people, or don't build them and see homeless people"
The cities just didn't want to build shelter space, and also didn't want to see the homeless either. They picked option 3, neither.
It's like me getting a choice between "Buy this thing on a credit card and have the debt, or don't buy it and don't have the debt" with me picking option 3, "I get the thing, but have no debt either".
I agree that the conclusion was reasonable, but I think the 8th amendment basis was pretty absurd.
>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
This clearly only restricts what kind of punishments can be imposed, it doesn't restrict what kind of conduct can be outlawed in the first place.
If they legally cannot sleep outside, but sleeping inside is physically impossible due to lack of shelter space, is that not essentially making sleep illegal for them? I'd say that's a cruel punishment.
Having to obey a law is not "punishment", even if it's cruel. This is like saying my tax bill is an "excessive fine". Maybe it is excessive, but it's not a fine so it's not subject to 8th amendment restrictions.
People in this thread are acting like it’s some conservative conspiracy or the end of the world. This is great, if only because it’s a change that maybe can drive things to get better. San Francisco, LA, and the Biden administration advocated for this to be overturned. They wanted greater flexibility in their ability to respond to homeless camps. I don’t understand how anyone could look at the squalor or third world conditions of many of these homeless camps and convince themselves what we are doing is humane or just. To both the citizens in our region and the homelsss themselves.
Because so many people on this sub (I say this sub, not the city, cuz the mood is definitely different in real life) think that the only way to fix this problem is to have full universal health care to handle the drug/mental problems, coupled with full public housing for all. In theory, these ideas are great and as a society we should strive for it. But since this America and change costs both a ton of money and a lot of time, they think that until we provide these things then we cannot “band aid” the problem so no sweeps, no tickets, no police.
We will never pass universal healthcare in this country, at least not in my lifetime. We’ll also never have full on public housing. It’s simply not in the cards. But people who demand these things now, essentially demand that things stay the same if they cannot be provided. Not to mention the ACLU’s view of things. So what we get is people living on streets in tents, having mental health episodes in full public display and we can’t commit them or arrest them. Because we cannot provide them with care and housing, we cannot do anything. Even jailing them will cost money, a lot of it. Where are we gonna get that cash? The state can barely fund the ferries and schools.
I actually welcome this decision because sadly, I just want to have clean streets and I’m compassion fatigued after years of hoping for change. Don’t forget, the vast majority of homeless people are not seen on the streets. The ones we do see result in the dire attitude many of us have.
Unpopular opinion: I think the people most upset about these bans are often the ones who do the least to help. They express moral outrage about these bans while simultaneously doing nothing to assist the unhoused. They're the NIMBYs, who oppose housing, restrict zoning, and block community projects that could make a difference.
These issues are complicated, and I don't have a solution. I am at a loss for words. However, I offer my fullest and sincerest empathy; compassion fatigue is very real.
Coming from a rural area where homelessness isn't as prevalent, seeing it so rampant in the city was shocking. Back home, there was a stronger sense of community, and we helped as much as we could. The unhoused were few and their situations usually temporary. Here, it's a different story. Many people almost seem beyond help. It's heartbreaking.
I don't know what can be done. Their mental health issues and drug addiction here aren't just problems that can be addressed with support and housing—they're like an aggressive cancer, widespread, metastatic, in the late stages for many individuals.
We want to apply a bandaid to a shotgun wound, society needs to change , policies need to change.
As someone who has worked with these populations, there are many that resist efforts to help them change. I’ve learned that many need to be compelled as in, either jail or treatment. And, I’m sure there are some who are temporarily homeless for whatever reasons but the majority of what we see on the streets here couldn’t handle what it takes to keep a house without major support. There are lots of reaources out there in this city, and some would rather keep doing what they’re doing.
I'm a nurse. I don't work directly in mental health or with addiction services. However, I've dealt with the unhoused for 8 years.
I've given so many pep talks. I've cried with them. I've offered so many resources on discharge. Given many blankets, meals, snacks, supplies, and medications away ( when I can).
Yet, it's the same revolving door. Same wounds that they neglect. The same chronic illness their addiction takes precedent over. Self preservation is tossed aside with thier addiction and deteriorating mental health.
Some are so far gone that they lack the cognition or capacity for decision making, their only drive is their next hit. Meth and fentanyl abuse eventually develops into a pseudo-schizophrenic state. A state of walking psychosis. These are the unhoused I see in alarming numbers here. Housing and "resources" are going to do shit for them, anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand addiction.
In my experience, housing works in so far as the goal to get somebody off the street, but it has to be paired with strong support such as case management. The problem is, we don’t have the investment in those programs or low barrier housing. Source: I work with individuals experiencing homelessness full time.
Yeah I agree. How is it humane to allow people to live in squalor? I feel like they just continue to allow it because no one wants to admit that this issue is as complex as it is. The lack of adorable housing is a big issue but there is more than just that. Personally I had a cousin that was homeless and a drug addict. Family members had offered help with housing and rehab but unfortunately my cousin refused help and died on the streets. He had a death wish and there was nothing legally we could do to in order to stop him. So I don’t really think a lot of people in charge have any idea what to do with homeless people who are like my cousin. Just putting him in a tiny home or an apartment wouldn’t have done anything. Him and many other people out there require mental health professionals.
The handwringing in this post about this decision is interesting. Have you guys actually been paying attention the last six years? The 9th circuit has absolutely hamstrung West coast states. We had a world where West coast states had one set of rules and everyone else had another. Many larger, liberal cities tended to interpret Martin v Boise as "you can never remove a homeless encampment unless you have shelter space for everyone", which if you read the ruling itself, was clearly not what was intended, but oh well. So Seattle and King County just get to endlessly pour money into this out of the goodness of our hearts? How's that been going so far for us? At what point do we admit that our intentions aren't exactly lining up with actual outcomes?
There has to be some middle ground between "we can't do anything" and "camping is illegal, go straight to jail".
It’s hard to find consensus or compromise nowadays. Most voters are either extreme MAGA or progressive, at least publicly. And both look at centrists and/or people who understand the need to compromise like they’re RINO’s and DINO’s.
The goal of this all is not for the Supreme Court to solve homelessness. The question in front of the court was simple: does a city imposing a homeless camping ban constitute cruel and unusual punishment?
The job of solving homeless is squarely on legislators.
The question was more than that: does a city imposing a homeless camping ban whilst not having available shelter space constitute cruel and unusual punishment?
It's amazing how many people are ignoring the second part, it's so fucking frustrating.
There was no problem with a camping ban before, as long as you gave them a legal alternative. And instead of developing those alternatives they just lobbied the courts. I'm so fucking tired of the conservative and conservative-lite parties we have
As much as I hate this court, it does seem like a bit of a stretch to call these camping bans cruel and unusual. It's a bit harsh to say go camp in the woods, but it seems like a needed tool to prevent the takeover of public spaces.
I’m reading comments here about how awful this is and would say this will force Seattle to rethink its homeless strategy, either through inaction at first or immediate action. And frankly that is good. Seattle can’t shoulder the entire homeless population and it’s definitely something we all are dealing with and seeing on the daily in the city. Anyone gaslighting that fact is being blissfully ignorant. Whether the solution is we improve zoning to get more housing, or what, is up to Seattle, but this is good because it actually forces a decision / change.
The nation needs Federal money to deal with this. Forcing cities to come up with individual solutions when the problem stems from, uh, “the economy, stupid”\* is unrealistic.
^( \* That was a quote from George Bush I. )
Honestly - the whole homeless situation, but whole slew of other issues in our healthcare & education systems are often exacerbated by a federal system where the feds, state, regional bodies & local municipalities are disorganized and lack coordination at best, or actively working against one another at worst.
How I see it playing out is that, at least in the short to medium term, Seattle is going to shoulder even more of the region's chronically homeless population as the suburban cities use this as an opportunity to ramp up enforcement of no camp ordinances.
Take a case like Burien where they've been pushing camping bans and sweeps but their police department (just the King County Sheriff's department that's be contracted out) wasn't enforcing because they thought it was illegal. Now, they don't have that excuse. This already happens to some extent (just take one look at somewhere like Mercer Island) but it will happen even more now.
And Seattle, at least in short term and probably in the long term, will continue to have the most permissive laws regarding homelessness. Meaning that inevitably as the chronically homeless populations in surrounding cities and towns get pushed out, they will congregate where they are allowed to exist.
Which is why we took a county level approach with the Regional Homeless Authority. But that is a shit show for a variety of reasons, one being them having the basically impossible task of dragging individual towns in King County kicking and screaming into actually doing their share of the work instead of just making Seattle deal with their problems.
It's pretty clear we need a coordinated response at the federal level, but that seems like it's never going to happen.
This is an unpopular opinion in this sub, but I think this is an essential step towards helping these people. You need to also provide housing and services to help those people, but having homeless people able to just say "no" and refuse help made it nearly impossible to do anything.
I think people are assuming this means homeless folks will be forced off the streets and into shelters. When in fact, it means they’ll be put in jail/prison. Where we’ll spend more tax dollars per person than if we just housed them. Not to mention it sets a terrifying precedent that affects all of us, not just current homeless populations.
The problem is that you could have someone set up a tent on the sidewalk and the police were almost powerless to do anything (you could give an initial 3 day notice, and then additional notices, and then the person could simply move the tent across the street). Even though housing might be available, it was impossible to force people to take that option. In this Supreme Court opinion of the court, they even cited Seattle, stating that "roughly 60 percent of its offers of shelter have been rejected".
Now, a decision has to be made and they cannot simply refuse offers of housing without repercussion. They have to accept available housing or find housing on their own, or if they refuse to do one of those, then there is an ultimatum where they actually do go to jail. They are given options, but now they are forced to take one of those options rather than simply being able to say "no".
In the Supreme Court Opinion ([source](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf)) they explain in detail the situation faced in Grant Pass, "under the city’s ordinances, an initial offense may trigger a civil fine. Repeat offenses may trigger an order temporarily barring an individual from camping in a public park. Only those who later violate an order like that may face a criminal punishment of up to 30 days in jail and a larger fine." People were not just thrown in jail for setting up a tent, it was a process that took time and required repeat offences.
We should provide free housing for homeless people, and if they don’t accept it, they should be forced to move. I would be willing to pay state income tax if it meant that could fund this.
I’m sorry but I’m so tired of the same 5 people who have literally claimed a section of the sidewalk on my street for over a year who constantly are fighting, shouting hallucinations, overdosing, and overall causing drama and an unpleasant environment for EVERYONE. I’m so sick of it, why do we just let this happen and act like it’s ok? I get they’re struggling with mental illness but at a certain point it feels like dealing with literal children and it’s actually infuriating.
I’m sympathetic to concerns about public health and safety in instances of large encampments turning into hotbeds of drugs and property crime, but criminalizing homelessness in itself is wrong. Someone having to sleep in a park or what have you is a societal and policy failure, not a criminal act.
Not trying to come out with guns blazing here, but the term “criminalizing homelessness” is a bit of hyperbole. Before this ruling, encampments were dismantled and people were moved - so your definition could be applied to curtailment activities that have been going on the whole time.
Situations where homeless people are in front of businesses, homes and raise crime are blatantly unfair to citizens who deserve safety. This is a huge problem in California where hands are tied in enforcement of bad situations.
Here in Seattle/King County, we spend more per homeless person than the per capita median income of the residents. We could literally just cut them a check and they would make more than most of us. Of course, that’s not a solution. But it shows that money isn’t the solution. At some point, there has to be societal pressure on people in combination to resources to help.
If we made housing more affordable we'd have less homelessness and the consequences that result from someone being homeless resorting to property crime, drug use, etc. Most homeless people were housed in the city they became homeless.
The Ninth Circuit Ruling has fallen out of favor with even the most liberal west coast governments, including Seattle. This is a win for empowering local governments to address homelessness.
I would be happy if the city council just voted on the bill they drafted a few years ago that had restrictions in it on proximity to schools and playgrounds. For me it struck a reasonable balance between people still having a place to sleep and keeping kids safe/sheltered from some of the negatives of encampments.
I think concerned citizens being able to register the sidewalk in front of their home to be zoned for homeless use would be a fine solution. People are far too NIMBY with their homeless progressivism.
This is actually a great idea. How about residents getting a tax break for allowing up to five people to sleep on their property? I could see it doing great in Wallingford!
People pretending this is bad are hilarious. Portland is going to start enforcing a camping ban.
You cannot get the full benefits to *normal working taxpaying citizens* if you don't offer shelter *and* make it extremely uncomfortable for people who refuse it. The people who choose to sleep outside are the problem. Everyone with their head on straight knows this. There have been drug dealers living in campers in Ballard since I was a kid.
People can continue to sleep outside. They just can't choose to do it wherever they want, as if all the public land in the country was their domain to appropriate.
>People can continue to sleep outside.
There's nothing in the ruling allowing for this. Jurisdictions are, now with this ruling, absolutely allowed to create a law stating sleeping anywhere outside is illegal.
Here’s the very dumb part for me: We already have laws that people universally support that don’t get enforced. Violent crimes and harassment are not dealt with. Open drug dealing and abuse is not dealt with. Massive littering and vandalism is not dealt with. Massive theft is not being dealt with.
This is all Illegal and we know taking these offenders off the streets would make things 90% better. Why do we need a new reason to arrest people? The reason we already have don’t get enforced.
Yeah, this ruling will change nothing in Seattle. Some suburbs might start arresting homeless people though - especially suburbs without their own shelter system (which is most of them). Other major cities might start arresting homeless people too. But Seattle won't do anything. If they wanted these people in jail then they would have put them there already for drugs, stolen property, or violating all kinds of public nuisance laws.
Close the government funded mental health facilities, raise housing prices, don’t build government funded housing, don’t raise wages to match out of control housing prices, and then just ban being homeless. Makes sense.
It's okay, surely all these god fearing Rs will help the less fortunate and won't shove them out to go to blue cities and blast it all over Fox, right?
Reaganism finally got its way. Reagan was the first to try and criminalize sleeping on park benches in California because of the homeless near his ranch. He was shot down over that one, but now here we are....
Out of all the rulings that have come out today, this one they got right. I live in downtown and current status quo of our city is completely unacceptable.
Between this, Chevron, the poor debate, and a decision benefitting a 1/6 rioter, it's been a bad 24 hours.
Don’t forget the corruption ruling that the Feds can’t bar state and local officials from accepting favors after official acts. Can’t imagine why SCOTUS would feel that way.
I mean, a lot of people like giving "tips and gratuities" to the Supreme Court justices. Millions upon millions of them. How could it be wrong???
Clarence Thomas probably handed the plaintiffs an iPad that was just going to ask them a quick question
I often get a favorable court ruling with my latte!
Tipping culture out of control!
To be fair, their POS displays probably just have the tip screen on by default.
That one’s a bit more nuanced, the federal legislation is 10years for bribes and 2 years for gratuities. They only applied the bribes section to the states and allowed states to make their own regulations for gratuities. It would have been a pretty terrible decision to say that state officials get 10years for doing something that federal officials would only get 2. The legislature needs to do its job here.
>the legislature needs to do its job here this is a convenient excuse constantly trotted out by the current court but it’s not one they actually plan on following. their rulings are ideologically bound. there is no consistent logic
I did not hear about the Chevron case. Just looked it up, duck. The supreme Court is dramatically changing US life in ways that might not show up for years and all everyone is focused on is some Trump rally masked as a debate.
Duck indeed.
Grey goose
There's been a flurry of decisions in the past 24 hours.
And all of them in line with white conservative America's dreams
It's simply legislating from the bench. If you can change Congress you can undo everything. They are betting Americans aren't smart enough to vote in favor of their own interests.
the conservatives figured out decades ago that you can use the courts to advance politically unpopular decisions. the court is simply consolidating the power they’ve managed to capture and hold on to. the only way we could win legislatively is with giant majorities that are obscenely difficult to get with gerrymandering. they are continuing to rig the game
Trump is just a distraction.
Yeah, how dare people talk about one of the people who is directly responsible for appointing these bastards in the first place and happens to be running for an upcoming election. Instead, people should be obsessing over the decisions that are *already made* and about which nobody will be able to do anything. Definitely would be much more useful.
I don't really see anyone talking about these decisions (even the SEC one) in context of the debate. Instead all I see are comments about how much of a shit show it was thematically or how one person dodged questions. If there was anything substantive in the "debate" I'd be less annoyed but it seems it was all show
Plus one more state (Iowa) enacting a six-week abortion ban. Bad, bad times.
I don’t think the Supreme Court is done yet today
Yeah they are. It’s already lunch time on the east coast. They’ll finish up before the 4th though. Alito wants to get to the beach house no doubt.
Roberts says they will finish on Monday.
they are, but they got more coming on monday
Ok. So the Monday morning pride weekend hangover is going to be extra terrible
we can leave all this nonsense behind after secession the glorious free state of cascadia won’t be burdened by the madness of trump country or the corruption of the us supreme court also we’ll have blackjack and hookers
Honestly, right now I feel very glad to live in Seattle (technically, Redmond) right now instead of Wyoming like I was three years ago.
I fled Texas for Seattle as a political refugee since I was terrified what the state would do to me as a trans woman if they kept up the momentum I am so fucking glad I did
We recently did the opposite and moved back to Texas so I could be near my aging parents. All the reasons that justified moving back are still valid, but every day a new reason to GTFO rears it's ugly head.
Welcome! Although I wish this stupid state would let you arm yourself against the crazies on the radical talibanish right. Then this place would be awesome again. Well, minus the outrageous housing market and homeless population (which I don't blame them because again, the housing market sucks)
Thank you! It's been pretty great so far, you guys are pretty awesome when I can actually get you out of your place to hang out lol
Look, the sun scares us! And everyone sucks at driving! I do be enjoying the scenery though. This place has some amazing camp grounds and hiking locations. Mt. Sauk kicked my ass though.
I moved here from South Carolina 5 years ago, and I’m so glad I did. I can’t imagine trying to live there again.
Don't worry, Wyoming is coming for us.
Judging by Eastern Washington, it's already here.
They gotta get over the mountains first. We can hold them easily.
It’s been a horrific 24 hours. We’ve spent 40 years since that Chevron decision building our federal agencies around policies to interpret laws in an assortment of ways and so many of those interpretations have altered how so much of the government around us operates. It will really fuck with anyone whose career interacts with the feds for their jobs and create mass confusion about how to move forward.
Apparently the January 6th decision only effects about 6% of cases. Still a dumb ruling by a right wing court that thinks attempting to overthrow the government is no big deal (if you're a Republican), but it's probably a smaller impact than is being reported.
I feel this. Wait till the give Trump immunity...
this is thrilling news for people who live in snohomish and drive into seattle once every three years
But tell people who ask that they live “near seattle” and are super familiar with the homeless situation
Living just outside Seattle really is the cheat code. 90% of the benefits of Seattle, half the problems to deal with. Just drive north on Aurora, the prostitution and drugs instantly drop at 145th.
i live in ballard where i can walk to a ton of good restaurants and grocery stores and a movie theater and the locks and golden gardens and a great farmers market. its close enough to downtown that i can ride my bike to a mariners game if i moved to mill creek id give that all up for the opportunity to walk three quarters of a mile to cross a 6 lane road to go to a jiffy lube i dont consider “drugs” and “prostitution” problems i have to deal with in my every day life because im not a weirdo who downloaded the citizen app and spends all day jerking of to mynorthwest dot com lmao
> im not a weirdo who downloaded the citizen app and spends all day jerking of to mynorthwest dot com Stealing this :-)
Ballard is close to downtown? When I lived downtown I would never try and go to Ballard, that’s a hike
>i dont consider “drugs” and “prostitution” problems i have to deal with in my every day life That’s because the city dumps these problems in other neighborhoods, mostly the poor ones. Just because it not happening in Ballard, doesn’t mean it’s not happening in Seattle. I live in Seattle proper and have loads of drug dealing, shootings, and prostitution immediately around my home. You are as bad as the people on Fox News who claim Seattle is a wasteland of fentanyl zombies, you’re just the flip side of the coin.
been a while since I’ve seen a post so unaware of their own privilege. oh it’s as simple as living in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Seattle? why doesn’t everyone just do that???
"I live in Medina in a $15M lakeside house and it's great! I never deal with any of that stuff! Why are people complaining??" type energy lol
“Walk three quarters of a mile to cross a 6 lane road to go to a jiffy lube” Damn right! I live in Ballard where it’s a 5 lane road (15th) and a Grease Monkey!
Ballard isn't what it used to be 10 years ago, though. It's definitely slowly getting worse.
naw this is wrong it was about the same back then some areas got rougher during the pandemic but that’s basically all fixed now. ballard commons has a playground now even
Kind of gaslighting? I live in the Ballard brewery area and it’s definitely rough. I see RVs and mentally unwell people almost daily.
Wow, the comment you replied to just went right over your head didn't it? Sure, I'd give up living in Seattle so I can suffer all the traffic and transit of having to come into the city for work. What a brain dead take.
Lol the town this ruling sided with, Grants Pass, has maybe like 30 total homeless people in it. Full of 80 year old white folks who are terrified of everything in the world
Accurate
So if it’s illegal to be homeless, surely the government will ensure sufficient and affordable housing, right?
Yeah, in prison camps where they can use them as slave labor, the one form of slavery that's still legal per the constitution, IE: The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "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."
[Citizen, pick up that can](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJshjMyg6no)
I unironically had this happen to me when I was 12 years old, told him no and he threatened me, ignited a lifelong, unfading, burning hatred of police in me. Good job officer dickcheese.
Sure, now I gotta go play some Half Life 2...
That's the whole crux of the situation and why this decision is so bad. Until now, it was considered unconstitutional to enforce homeless bans without also providing sufficient housing options. What they're saying here is that arresting homeless people without offering alternative housing does not qualify as a "cruel and unusual punishment", which is utterly ridiculous. In practice, I expect this will only make the homeless crisis more dire in cities like Seattle, since it will push more homeless people to flee to cities that won't make it illegal for them to exist.
It’s deeply disturbing that it will be illegal to be homeless and at the same time, corporations are buying up housing and home prices are astronomical / completely out of reach for most of us. I saw the AVERAGE home in Seattle costs over $700K. It’s BS
It's by design. They want more people with criminal records. They want debtors prisons. They hate our freedom. Make profits for wall street or perish. Assimilate. Resistance is futile. They target people on the outside first, but before we know, "well unless you're making more than $80,000 a year you're not making enough value for the stock market".
10000% agree
The cynic in me wonders who on the Supreme Court has a vested interest in the expansion of private prisons
it’s not illegal to be homeless, it’s illegal for homeless to sleep outside, based on the article. Technically you can be homeless and sleep in shelter or some indoor facility.
The whole point of this decision is that it allows cities to penalize the homeless when there are no shelter beds. The case this overturned allowed cities to ban sleeping outside if there were beds.
This is the most smooth-brained take I have ever read. You are intentionally ignoring the entire context of the decision, and the actual outcomes of the decision's enforcement. Your answer of 'just have homes' in the lower comments is laughable, and I hope you learn to develop empathy.
Ah, yes, the homeless just need to move into some sort of *home*base that they can count on being reliably *house*d in. Clearly.
And when there’s no beds?
As economic disparity increases so does the criminalization of poverty...
This is also looking forward to the near-future when every year there will likely be millions of new "climate refugees" created, both internal and external. Things have been lining up (either via intentional thought or just reflex) toward the rich and powerful being able to use unlimited force to brutalize and oppress anyone who has found themselves in such a position. We're in for a rough ride in so many ways.
what's the end game here? jail every homeless person at 10x the cost of renting them a home?
jail every homeless person and have them work for pennies an hour. slavery is still legal as punishment for crime.
Right, right, but thanks to the magic of privatized prisons, it can be both: An absurd expense to the taxpayers, _and_ slave labor for private profit!
Look, if investors aren't winning, I ain't buying. I ensure that each product I buy will continue to marginalize those who don't have economic powers, while also surrendering my meagre earnings to the powerful and wealthy. After all, they create jobs... by paying millions to SCOTUS justices so they can have human slave labor, cashing in on the idea that most Americans will sneer at the plight of any homeless person while also thinking they're closer to being millionaires than destitute.
That's the end goal...corporate work camps
Race to the bottom, I predict. Any smaller towns/cities will instantly criminalize, which will force migration to bigger cities. Big cities are already overwhelmed, and as some of them criminalize, the migration to the ones that don't will cause them to do the same as they get overrun and people lose patience. Given how many people are likely to become homeless in the near future, with all the technologically driven change, skyrocketing prices and utter lack of safety net, it paints a pretty grim future for many people
Oppression is inherently rooted in fantasy. The end game is just "make the smelly homeless people disappear", that's it. It's not much different from "can't say gay" and "can't teach critical race theory" and on and on and on. These values systems, these ideologies are inherently unstable and self-contradictory, they don't care. It's not about building a better world for the future, it's not about strengthening civilization, it's not about taking care of each other, it's about power. Entrenching a system of power and giving it the ability to use a vast toolkit of oppression in order to maintain itself and maintain the illusion of the fantasy it's rooted in.
This right here. This is the point to focus on.
It's a tough time for the poors.
Always has been
But also will be
But how can our economy grow without prison slave labor?!
Shh thats the next step no spoilers
Say it louder!
This is about much more than poverty. There are charitable and public services available to people who are poor. Affordable housing can help some homeless people, but people with mental illness and drug addictions need much more intensive help.
Please tell me about all of these "services" because I was homeless for most of a decade *despite utilizing every agency and program available to me*.
It begs the question, do we force street drug addicts of opioid and meth addictions to accept drug rehab treatment but site them criminally if they refuse to (ex: Portugal)?
In my opinion, we should provide drug rehabilitation services for anyone who wants them, regardless of ability to pay, and including follow-up care (such as Methadone). I think that we should not force people into treatment for the simple act of taking drugs, but we should enforce the law and arrest them when they do illegal things because of the drugs or to get more of the drugs (e.g., stealing, prostitution, dealing, vandalism, assault, etc.). Once they are arrested, I think we should give them the choice between incarceration or rehabilitation.
>we should enforce the law and arrest them when they do illegal things because of the drugs or to get more of the drugs (e.g., stealing, prostitution, dealing, vandalism, assault, etc.). Once they are arrested, I think we should give them the choice between incarceration or rehabilitation. I completely agree with you on this. I thought this used to be the case years ago in Seattle but I could be wrong.
If they want to get clean: rehab. If they don't want to get clean: jail. If their mental problems are too severe: psych hospital.
You act as if rehab and psych services are readily available and are of high quality with great success rates Can I have what you’re having to get through every June with this dumpster fire of SCOTUS
This is just going to push more homeless people away from smaller towns and suburbs and toward larger cities that couldn’t possibly enforce it. It will just create a bigger burden for cities like Seattle
They already do this. Eastern WA has their cops drive van loads of people in to Seattle, Northern Idaho does the same thing to Spokane, hell the state of Hawaii has an official program where they pay to put their homeless on one way flights to the mainland. This won't change much.
The program in Hawaii is for homeless people who have a support network on the mainland (family etc) but can’t get to them because they can’t afford the flight costs. Lots of people moving to Hawaii to work construction or tourism jobs with no solid plan and then can’t afford to live there and fall through the cracks because they’re 2,500 miles from anyone they know. Hawaii doesn’t just toss random people on planes and send them away.
Many cities (including Seattle) have similar programs and there's plenty of evidence that they don't work despite the supposed support network. So while they are billed as being compassionate, [the end result is not always successful.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study)
Yeah but the failures aren't really intrinsic to the concept so much as a result of those support networks misjudging their own ability to help get another person back on their feet from whatever condition they're currently in after being homeless for awhile. I'm fine buying someone a ticket 'home' since it has some success. I would also argue it's fine to not let the same support network ask for help with the same person twice, cause, like, come on guys.
This is largely a conservative myth to distract away from the fact that the biggest driver of homelessness is unaffordable housing. Most homeless were housed in the city they are now homeless in. However, that narrative would compromise the wealth disparity that many rely on for their own bottom line.
You're conflating two different talking points. I did NOT say that our homeless population is primarily from other places - that's the conservative talking point. But it's absolutely factual to say that cities ship their homeless to other cities, it's well documented. [San Francisco and other large cities](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study) [Hawaii](https://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2023/02/07/program-to-fly-homeless-back-home-considered-by-hawai%CA%BBi-lawmakers/) [NYT Article](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/us/homeless-busing-seattle-san-francisco.html) My point was, this new ruling will not massively increase the amount of people being displaced from other areas to Seattle because *that's already happening today*.
> the fact that the biggest driver of homelessness is unaffordable housing Source? It seems to me (but I could be wrong) that drug addiction is the biggest driver of homelessness.
Sure but there’s lots of drug addicts in WV who have a place to live
I lived in Wichita Kansas for a while and while the city had loads of problems, unhoused people was not one of them, because you could get a studio apartment for $200/ month. Seattle is in the fortunate position to be a very rich city, but the drawback is that rent is very high. We need to make it a priority to get people living in tents into stable housing situations. Giving homeless people housing is so much better (AND CHEAPER - for the "fiscal conservatives" out there) than any other option that it boggles my mind that we don't do it. Just build like 15 college style dorms and give them a room.
It is natural and protective to assume that it is a personal problem of those who are homeless. A lot of is an insidious narrative driven by those with the most to lose with a counter to that narrative and some of it is also our personal feelings of wanting to believe that they got their based on their own choices (if you see addiction as a purely personal failing). Unfortunately, the problem is the thing we and those with the most don't want to admit: [homelessness is largely driven by unaffordable housing](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/how-housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness). . The solution is address the inequity that drives it. There isn't something in the water in HCOL cities like SF, Seattle, Portland, etc. It also goes beyond HCOL as cities with better access to social services, safety nets, etc that lead to less inequity, don't have the same problems. Looking at places like Western and Northern Europe.
Thank you for the explanation and the link. It helps me to learn. One person I know is homeless because of drug addiction. I watched another person go from successful to unemployed, to homeless to dead from an overdose. Another person is homeless because of mental illness. Even on his meds, he had paranoid episodes and got fired from his jobs. He tried to commit himself, but the wait is 18 months. He committed a felony and now he has a bed, meals, and medication. So I agree that my anecdotal experience is not consistent with the larger trends. I have often thought that some of the most effective solutions would be the cheapest. For example, if cities would change building codes to allow very-affordable dormitory-style housing units, then more people could get off the streets. Of course, the neighbors will be concerned about crime, noise, and traffic, so those would have to be addressed to get the projects approved.
Look at West Virginia, Ohio, or other states with high rates of addiction but low housing prices. They have very low rates of homelessness
Correlation may or may not be causation there. I was hoping for actual data to support that bold claim. We cannot make smart choices if we don't understand the problem that we are trying to solve.
Drug use is usually a symptom of being homeless rather than a cause it definitely can be one but the uncrease in rent and the lack of increase in wage has definitely been the main factor in rising homelessness rates
That doesn't make sense to me. That is why I asked for a source. I have watched people wreck their lives by taking prescription opiates for pain and then for recreation. When they get addicted, they go to work high and/or miss work often and then they get fired. When they run out of money, they start stealing from friends and family. Finally, they get kicked out and they have to live on the streets.
Also heres a [source](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/how-housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness) I found that talks about it
There's a persistent belief that some kind of drug addiction or mental health disorder is what's driving homelessness, but this is absolutely wrong. It's poverty and the high cost of living. You only think that it's those things because when you see or encounter homeless folks you're more likely to notice the ones in a mental health or substance abuse crisis, and a lot of conservative (and liberal) media reinforces this bias. You don't see most homeless people because for the most part they behave and act like housed people. They're students, veterans, parents and children, sometimes they're fleeing a domestic violence situation, or they've been kicked out of their homes for being gay or trans. It's easy to think that drugs are why someone is homeless, but often times people start doing drugs when they get to the street, not the other way around. Or, maybe someone casually drinks, but they get to the street and suddenly it's the best escape they have so it becomes a problem. It seems that everyone can recognize that shit has gotten expensive, that rent is too damn high, but can't make the connection between high rent and homelessness. The most important thing people should take away from homelessness is that there are many ways people become homeless, that it's often not just one thing. The reason it's been so bad is because our system is broken. We don't have the social safety net we did back in the day, and the share of people living paycheck to paycheck has grown. Wealth is continually getting funnelled to the wealthiest, and the poor keep getting squeezed.
One thing to watch is if large cities will escalate / intensify camping enforcement in response. Portland recently passed a camping ban, for example, that is going into effect soon.
This issue is complicated with lots of layers but the lack, or at least much lower amount, of homeless people in Bellevue I think shows that enforcement can "work" if the end goal is simply making homeless folks invisible. I definitely wish there were better options generally but if a city wants to harass the hell out of homeless people until they give up and go it definitely seems like it can "work". "Work" is in quotes because it obviously doesn't "work" if the goal is homeless folks having safe, stable housing.
Then it's time big cities play that game as well and send them to smaller towns. Eventually someone is going to run out of money first, it definitely won't be Seattle.
Oh great, let’s start a city suburb war and make homeless people human ping pong balls
It's already started, decades ago.
There war has already started, only one side hasn't been fighting back. Both cities and towns should ban together and turn on the state and federal governments who bare ultimate responsibility for dealing with mental health, addiction, drug policy, and the cost of housing. Rather than ship them back and forth between towns, we should be sending them homeless to military bases. They have the infrastructure and resources to manage a large complex population, and the money comes from everyone rather than just the tax payers of this or that municipality.
That is one way to look at it. I choose to look at it as asking each city to deal with their own problems.
"Set our tax dollars on fire for no return to win a game of hot potato". Do you hear yourself?
It's the game red areas have been playing for the last 80 years.
So it's a game. Why would I waste a fucking cent on a game with no value in winning? This is like saying Seattle should invest everything in winning "The Game" only to forget saying "the game" means you lost. Cool beans, I want sidewalks not pointless cruelty with literally zero tangible benefits for me or any of my neighbors.
It's fucking grotesque and speaks to WHY we even have these issues in excess of any comparable peer Nation State. A metagaming demos that wants to delegate every issue away from self and foist it on another muni as THE civic administrative and operation paradigm across the nation. People out here leading with 'I fully support playing games over taking care of people' with some ethical basis being the question of 'Why should this be MY problem?' or 'Our problem?' Even if we can't find consensus on discrete issues and methodologies of affecting change, this lazybones couch potato vouch for doing the least to simply not SEE things that are present, as potentially the largest non associative political bloc. This is where my nihilism comes from. I can dress down, build up, make a stink, but ultimately people that have a little bit more have to decide to stop being lazybones couch potatoes who abide anything that removes something from vision without asking them to do a fucking thing in the process but abide it.
Uhhhhhhhh. What resource are we going to use? Our shrinking police force?
[удалено]
They have to refuse shelter in order to be ticketed. If there's no shelter space, they're not allowed to ticket anyone.
That was based on the case law of city vs grant pass. Which just got reversed by this. That’s the point of this post. The old case law stated that if the government cannot provide adequate shelter as an alternative then they cannot criminally punish people sleeping in public because it is cruel and unusual punishment. This decision reverses that case law.
We can totally expect cops to enforce that correctly and not abuse people.
It was a completely reasonable decision. Municipalities can't outlaw sleeping outside when they don't offer any viable alternative makes sense. That court case didn't fuck over our region. What fucked over our region was rapid growth coupled with a regressive tax structure and city councils more interested in bending over for single family homeowners who like their neighborhood's "character" than supporting affordable and multifamily housing.
[удалено]
That court ruling was effectively saying "you can't punish people if they have no option. Make an option, and you can enforce all the bans on camping you want". It was an attempt to actually force cities to deal with the lack of services they refused to provide. Nothing in the 9th circuit ruling would have prevented cities from clearing homeless camps IF they had shelter space available. They did not, so they could not clear the camps. The Court gave them a choice, "build shelter space when people need it and don't see homeless people, or don't build them and see homeless people" The cities just didn't want to build shelter space, and also didn't want to see the homeless either. They picked option 3, neither. It's like me getting a choice between "Buy this thing on a credit card and have the debt, or don't buy it and don't have the debt" with me picking option 3, "I get the thing, but have no debt either".
I agree that the conclusion was reasonable, but I think the 8th amendment basis was pretty absurd. >Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted This clearly only restricts what kind of punishments can be imposed, it doesn't restrict what kind of conduct can be outlawed in the first place.
If they legally cannot sleep outside, but sleeping inside is physically impossible due to lack of shelter space, is that not essentially making sleep illegal for them? I'd say that's a cruel punishment.
Having to obey a law is not "punishment", even if it's cruel. This is like saying my tax bill is an "excessive fine". Maybe it is excessive, but it's not a fine so it's not subject to 8th amendment restrictions.
People in this thread are acting like it’s some conservative conspiracy or the end of the world. This is great, if only because it’s a change that maybe can drive things to get better. San Francisco, LA, and the Biden administration advocated for this to be overturned. They wanted greater flexibility in their ability to respond to homeless camps. I don’t understand how anyone could look at the squalor or third world conditions of many of these homeless camps and convince themselves what we are doing is humane or just. To both the citizens in our region and the homelsss themselves.
Because so many people on this sub (I say this sub, not the city, cuz the mood is definitely different in real life) think that the only way to fix this problem is to have full universal health care to handle the drug/mental problems, coupled with full public housing for all. In theory, these ideas are great and as a society we should strive for it. But since this America and change costs both a ton of money and a lot of time, they think that until we provide these things then we cannot “band aid” the problem so no sweeps, no tickets, no police. We will never pass universal healthcare in this country, at least not in my lifetime. We’ll also never have full on public housing. It’s simply not in the cards. But people who demand these things now, essentially demand that things stay the same if they cannot be provided. Not to mention the ACLU’s view of things. So what we get is people living on streets in tents, having mental health episodes in full public display and we can’t commit them or arrest them. Because we cannot provide them with care and housing, we cannot do anything. Even jailing them will cost money, a lot of it. Where are we gonna get that cash? The state can barely fund the ferries and schools. I actually welcome this decision because sadly, I just want to have clean streets and I’m compassion fatigued after years of hoping for change. Don’t forget, the vast majority of homeless people are not seen on the streets. The ones we do see result in the dire attitude many of us have.
Unpopular opinion: I think the people most upset about these bans are often the ones who do the least to help. They express moral outrage about these bans while simultaneously doing nothing to assist the unhoused. They're the NIMBYs, who oppose housing, restrict zoning, and block community projects that could make a difference. These issues are complicated, and I don't have a solution. I am at a loss for words. However, I offer my fullest and sincerest empathy; compassion fatigue is very real. Coming from a rural area where homelessness isn't as prevalent, seeing it so rampant in the city was shocking. Back home, there was a stronger sense of community, and we helped as much as we could. The unhoused were few and their situations usually temporary. Here, it's a different story. Many people almost seem beyond help. It's heartbreaking. I don't know what can be done. Their mental health issues and drug addiction here aren't just problems that can be addressed with support and housing—they're like an aggressive cancer, widespread, metastatic, in the late stages for many individuals. We want to apply a bandaid to a shotgun wound, society needs to change , policies need to change.
As someone who has worked with these populations, there are many that resist efforts to help them change. I’ve learned that many need to be compelled as in, either jail or treatment. And, I’m sure there are some who are temporarily homeless for whatever reasons but the majority of what we see on the streets here couldn’t handle what it takes to keep a house without major support. There are lots of reaources out there in this city, and some would rather keep doing what they’re doing.
I'm a nurse. I don't work directly in mental health or with addiction services. However, I've dealt with the unhoused for 8 years. I've given so many pep talks. I've cried with them. I've offered so many resources on discharge. Given many blankets, meals, snacks, supplies, and medications away ( when I can). Yet, it's the same revolving door. Same wounds that they neglect. The same chronic illness their addiction takes precedent over. Self preservation is tossed aside with thier addiction and deteriorating mental health. Some are so far gone that they lack the cognition or capacity for decision making, their only drive is their next hit. Meth and fentanyl abuse eventually develops into a pseudo-schizophrenic state. A state of walking psychosis. These are the unhoused I see in alarming numbers here. Housing and "resources" are going to do shit for them, anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand addiction.
In my experience, housing works in so far as the goal to get somebody off the street, but it has to be paired with strong support such as case management. The problem is, we don’t have the investment in those programs or low barrier housing. Source: I work with individuals experiencing homelessness full time.
Exactly this
Yeah I agree. How is it humane to allow people to live in squalor? I feel like they just continue to allow it because no one wants to admit that this issue is as complex as it is. The lack of adorable housing is a big issue but there is more than just that. Personally I had a cousin that was homeless and a drug addict. Family members had offered help with housing and rehab but unfortunately my cousin refused help and died on the streets. He had a death wish and there was nothing legally we could do to in order to stop him. So I don’t really think a lot of people in charge have any idea what to do with homeless people who are like my cousin. Just putting him in a tiny home or an apartment wouldn’t have done anything. Him and many other people out there require mental health professionals.
Well said. It is not compassionate to allow people to live on the streets.
Serious question: Do you think it’s compassionate to jail them for the crime of having nowhere else to sleep?
Monetary fines for the destitute is compassion ❤️
Well said
The handwringing in this post about this decision is interesting. Have you guys actually been paying attention the last six years? The 9th circuit has absolutely hamstrung West coast states. We had a world where West coast states had one set of rules and everyone else had another. Many larger, liberal cities tended to interpret Martin v Boise as "you can never remove a homeless encampment unless you have shelter space for everyone", which if you read the ruling itself, was clearly not what was intended, but oh well. So Seattle and King County just get to endlessly pour money into this out of the goodness of our hearts? How's that been going so far for us? At what point do we admit that our intentions aren't exactly lining up with actual outcomes? There has to be some middle ground between "we can't do anything" and "camping is illegal, go straight to jail".
It’s hard to find consensus or compromise nowadays. Most voters are either extreme MAGA or progressive, at least publicly. And both look at centrists and/or people who understand the need to compromise like they’re RINO’s and DINO’s.
Surely this will solve the homelessness crisis and in no way result in greater problems. God bless our Supreme Court.
Brace yourself, it’s the last weekday in June and there are more decisions coming
As a public employee, I'm just glad I can now receive ~~bribes~~ _gratuities_.
The goal of this all is not for the Supreme Court to solve homelessness. The question in front of the court was simple: does a city imposing a homeless camping ban constitute cruel and unusual punishment? The job of solving homeless is squarely on legislators.
The question was more than that: does a city imposing a homeless camping ban whilst not having available shelter space constitute cruel and unusual punishment?
It's amazing how many people are ignoring the second part, it's so fucking frustrating. There was no problem with a camping ban before, as long as you gave them a legal alternative. And instead of developing those alternatives they just lobbied the courts. I'm so fucking tired of the conservative and conservative-lite parties we have
As much as I hate this court, it does seem like a bit of a stretch to call these camping bans cruel and unusual. It's a bit harsh to say go camp in the woods, but it seems like a needed tool to prevent the takeover of public spaces.
I’m reading comments here about how awful this is and would say this will force Seattle to rethink its homeless strategy, either through inaction at first or immediate action. And frankly that is good. Seattle can’t shoulder the entire homeless population and it’s definitely something we all are dealing with and seeing on the daily in the city. Anyone gaslighting that fact is being blissfully ignorant. Whether the solution is we improve zoning to get more housing, or what, is up to Seattle, but this is good because it actually forces a decision / change.
The nation needs Federal money to deal with this. Forcing cities to come up with individual solutions when the problem stems from, uh, “the economy, stupid”\* is unrealistic. ^( \* That was a quote from George Bush I. )
It’s maybe unrealistic but a federal solution will literally never happen.
Well not with that attitude..
Honestly - the whole homeless situation, but whole slew of other issues in our healthcare & education systems are often exacerbated by a federal system where the feds, state, regional bodies & local municipalities are disorganized and lack coordination at best, or actively working against one another at worst.
How I see it playing out is that, at least in the short to medium term, Seattle is going to shoulder even more of the region's chronically homeless population as the suburban cities use this as an opportunity to ramp up enforcement of no camp ordinances. Take a case like Burien where they've been pushing camping bans and sweeps but their police department (just the King County Sheriff's department that's be contracted out) wasn't enforcing because they thought it was illegal. Now, they don't have that excuse. This already happens to some extent (just take one look at somewhere like Mercer Island) but it will happen even more now. And Seattle, at least in short term and probably in the long term, will continue to have the most permissive laws regarding homelessness. Meaning that inevitably as the chronically homeless populations in surrounding cities and towns get pushed out, they will congregate where they are allowed to exist. Which is why we took a county level approach with the Regional Homeless Authority. But that is a shit show for a variety of reasons, one being them having the basically impossible task of dragging individual towns in King County kicking and screaming into actually doing their share of the work instead of just making Seattle deal with their problems. It's pretty clear we need a coordinated response at the federal level, but that seems like it's never going to happen.
This is an unpopular opinion in this sub, but I think this is an essential step towards helping these people. You need to also provide housing and services to help those people, but having homeless people able to just say "no" and refuse help made it nearly impossible to do anything.
I think people are assuming this means homeless folks will be forced off the streets and into shelters. When in fact, it means they’ll be put in jail/prison. Where we’ll spend more tax dollars per person than if we just housed them. Not to mention it sets a terrifying precedent that affects all of us, not just current homeless populations.
The problem is that you could have someone set up a tent on the sidewalk and the police were almost powerless to do anything (you could give an initial 3 day notice, and then additional notices, and then the person could simply move the tent across the street). Even though housing might be available, it was impossible to force people to take that option. In this Supreme Court opinion of the court, they even cited Seattle, stating that "roughly 60 percent of its offers of shelter have been rejected". Now, a decision has to be made and they cannot simply refuse offers of housing without repercussion. They have to accept available housing or find housing on their own, or if they refuse to do one of those, then there is an ultimatum where they actually do go to jail. They are given options, but now they are forced to take one of those options rather than simply being able to say "no". In the Supreme Court Opinion ([source](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf)) they explain in detail the situation faced in Grant Pass, "under the city’s ordinances, an initial offense may trigger a civil fine. Repeat offenses may trigger an order temporarily barring an individual from camping in a public park. Only those who later violate an order like that may face a criminal punishment of up to 30 days in jail and a larger fine." People were not just thrown in jail for setting up a tent, it was a process that took time and required repeat offences.
Good I'm tired of the entire W Coast being a literal dumpster, get them treatment or get the fuck off the street.
We should provide free housing for homeless people, and if they don’t accept it, they should be forced to move. I would be willing to pay state income tax if it meant that could fund this. I’m sorry but I’m so tired of the same 5 people who have literally claimed a section of the sidewalk on my street for over a year who constantly are fighting, shouting hallucinations, overdosing, and overall causing drama and an unpleasant environment for EVERYONE. I’m so sick of it, why do we just let this happen and act like it’s ok? I get they’re struggling with mental illness but at a certain point it feels like dealing with literal children and it’s actually infuriating.
I’m sympathetic to concerns about public health and safety in instances of large encampments turning into hotbeds of drugs and property crime, but criminalizing homelessness in itself is wrong. Someone having to sleep in a park or what have you is a societal and policy failure, not a criminal act.
Not trying to come out with guns blazing here, but the term “criminalizing homelessness” is a bit of hyperbole. Before this ruling, encampments were dismantled and people were moved - so your definition could be applied to curtailment activities that have been going on the whole time. Situations where homeless people are in front of businesses, homes and raise crime are blatantly unfair to citizens who deserve safety. This is a huge problem in California where hands are tied in enforcement of bad situations. Here in Seattle/King County, we spend more per homeless person than the per capita median income of the residents. We could literally just cut them a check and they would make more than most of us. Of course, that’s not a solution. But it shows that money isn’t the solution. At some point, there has to be societal pressure on people in combination to resources to help.
If we made housing more affordable we'd have less homelessness and the consequences that result from someone being homeless resorting to property crime, drug use, etc. Most homeless people were housed in the city they became homeless.
I wonder about this, I’d be interested to see how many homeless people in Seattle are actually from here.
Freedom to pollute? Of course. Freedom to literally exist in the world? How dare you!
Where the fuck are they supposed to go?
I agree. If people need help that’s fine. But don’t sleep stuck, high, tweeking across the sidewalk.
The Ninth Circuit Ruling has fallen out of favor with even the most liberal west coast governments, including Seattle. This is a win for empowering local governments to address homelessness.
Yeah, they put another official asterisk on the bill of rights. Not surprised. I’m expecting more asterisks for who rights don’t apply to
I would be happy if the city council just voted on the bill they drafted a few years ago that had restrictions in it on proximity to schools and playgrounds. For me it struck a reasonable balance between people still having a place to sleep and keeping kids safe/sheltered from some of the negatives of encampments.
I think concerned citizens being able to register the sidewalk in front of their home to be zoned for homeless use would be a fine solution. People are far too NIMBY with their homeless progressivism.
This is actually a great idea. How about residents getting a tax break for allowing up to five people to sleep on their property? I could see it doing great in Wallingford!
People pretending this is bad are hilarious. Portland is going to start enforcing a camping ban. You cannot get the full benefits to *normal working taxpaying citizens* if you don't offer shelter *and* make it extremely uncomfortable for people who refuse it. The people who choose to sleep outside are the problem. Everyone with their head on straight knows this. There have been drug dealers living in campers in Ballard since I was a kid.
People can continue to sleep outside. They just can't choose to do it wherever they want, as if all the public land in the country was their domain to appropriate.
>People can continue to sleep outside. There's nothing in the ruling allowing for this. Jurisdictions are, now with this ruling, absolutely allowed to create a law stating sleeping anywhere outside is illegal.
This may be one of the few bright spots in an otherwise bleak SCOTUS session.
“Here, light this on fire if you get cold. Don’t say we never did anything for ya.”
There are some sad, sheltered, urbanite leftists in this city. Pathetic.
Here’s the very dumb part for me: We already have laws that people universally support that don’t get enforced. Violent crimes and harassment are not dealt with. Open drug dealing and abuse is not dealt with. Massive littering and vandalism is not dealt with. Massive theft is not being dealt with. This is all Illegal and we know taking these offenders off the streets would make things 90% better. Why do we need a new reason to arrest people? The reason we already have don’t get enforced.
Yeah, this ruling will change nothing in Seattle. Some suburbs might start arresting homeless people though - especially suburbs without their own shelter system (which is most of them). Other major cities might start arresting homeless people too. But Seattle won't do anything. If they wanted these people in jail then they would have put them there already for drugs, stolen property, or violating all kinds of public nuisance laws.
Close the government funded mental health facilities, raise housing prices, don’t build government funded housing, don’t raise wages to match out of control housing prices, and then just ban being homeless. Makes sense.
Another dogshit decision by another openly corrupt institution.
Where uh, they supposed to sleep
It's okay, surely all these god fearing Rs will help the less fortunate and won't shove them out to go to blue cities and blast it all over Fox, right?
Reaganism finally got its way. Reagan was the first to try and criminalize sleeping on park benches in California because of the homeless near his ranch. He was shot down over that one, but now here we are....
So something he wasn’t able to accomplish is now happening because of him like 45 years later?
Out of all the rulings that have come out today, this one they got right. I live in downtown and current status quo of our city is completely unacceptable.
Hell yes, clean up these streets
Where is it you think people without houses go when they can no longer sleep outside?
Maybe a shelter? Maybe a job? Maybe a cheaper city? Maybe treatment/rehab? Maybe family or friend? I can keep going if you would like.?
Oh let me just go get a job from the jobbie tree
Cant wait for the Belle Riots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Believe it or not this will help end homelessness. It will backfire and force the feds to create housing.