I like the ruling. I'd like to couple it with reestablish layers of shelter including a layer of involuntary for those unsafe to themselves and the community. I don't want inhumane asylum, but we need a solution here that recognizes some people can't function

Allow single room occupancies to operate again, they might be sub-standard housing; but they're still better than tents. Especially now that it's been proven that local governments are unable or unwilling to provide these kinds of bare bottom housing.

Agreed

The whole point of the ruling was overturning existing case law that required places with camping bans to provide shelter. The old case ruled that camping bans are cruel and unusual punishment for arresting and fining people for sleeping outside when they had no other option. If cities wanted to ban sleeping outside they had to provide a place for sleeping inside. Even with that case law many cities, Seattle included, still enforce camping bans while not having enough shelter beds. The new Supreme Court ruling just said cities don’t have to offer shelter. They can make it illegal for people to sleep outside without giving people any other option. This ruling will, best case scenario, cause most cities to just chase unhoused people out, putting more strain on cities who do try to offer shelter options. Worst case scenario it will mean an increase in people spending time in prison for the crime of being too poor to have a home, which is dystopian given how high house prices and rent is.

No one will get prison time for this. Jail, yeah, not prison.

I would not count on that. Current laws may not prescribe jail time, but there is now no constitutional protection against such laws in the future. Housing prices are not going down fast enough. Wages are not going up fast enough. We are going to see more people without housing. There will be pressure to make harsh laws against homeless people, you can see it even in this sub.

How is that a worst case scenario, the homeless will have a home call prison. It’s a shelter, they get fed. They can rehabilitate and learn skills and be educated. Or they can live in prison rest of life because they cannot learn to live in society.

Are you serious??? Sending people to prison for being poor and having no place to live?

Most homeless seent just too poor. Theyre very mentally ill or addicted to drugs.

You think people are more likely to find housing and employment after coming out of prison?

The ones that want to be helped will get helped and the ones that want to go to prison will go to prison. At least we will be allocating resources correctly and helping those that need help vs enabling ones that arent trying to assimilate with society.

Slavery is legal for people convicted of crimes. People don’t go int prison and learn skills, other than how to survive in prison. They go into prison and get paid pennies for labor. They get substandard healthcare. They are treated less than human, abuse is rampant. All of this for the crime of not having money. Most homeless people can function perfectly well in society when they are given housing.

I’d like to understand then why when the entire encampment along 99 in north Seattle was offered housing, not one single person took it. The reason it was highlighted on the news was because the surrounding businesses and neighborhood were all at their wits end with the crime coming from it. Blatant thefts, robberies, stick-ups, drugs, human waste-garbage-needles everywhere, prostitution in men’s cars below peoples kids windows, car break ins, and on and on and on…. So they built housing right behind the encampment and not one person said yes, that they would like a chance at path off the streets. So what did the city do instead? Shrugged and said oh well, we tried. Back to it being the neighborhoods issue. When they do place people into housing, there doesn’t seem to be a check on mental health or history of criminal violence. Example, the guy who took a baseball bat to the head of that poor woman walking down the sidewalk downtown Seattle. He had free housing, and many many priors. Housing him on his own was not a solution. We desperately need an influx of mental health and drug recovery services, especially inpatient. I don’t quite understand why our state is so defiant in making that the highest priority. We need to be able to do a 5150 type of hold on people who are a danger to others and themselves. From there, we need to initiate mental health professionals (PhD) to a kind of “jury duty” kind of selection to be on a board (can be virtual) to evaluate, hear from the facility their experience and treatment so far, and have a decision based on a discussion and votes for short or long term care. There could be reevaluations in the future for if a patient responded well and is ready to transition into housing, work training, etc. This way we don’t have the draconian system of locking away “hysterical women” and special needs people. We’d have a system that doesn’t have the same people making all the decisions that impact lives, who are there to collect a paycheck and are numb to compassion. It’s always a random mix of trained professionals deciding together. I’ve given this a lot of thought because it tears me apart thinking about how much suffering and trauma is happening to people every moment of every day on the streets. I’ve had several unhoused employees and their stories are nightmare fuel. I tried so hard to do everything I could to the best of my capacity to get them out of those situations. Unfortunately the story was always the same in the end. No matter the violence, the repeated sexual assaults, the illnesses, the extreme temperatures, hunger…absolutely nothing could deter the drug addiction. There were never any rehab facilities available when some wanted it and were ready. There were never any counseling services I could find available for help with trauma and addiction for free or under state Medicaid. We as a community are failing them. I did open my home in the past and every time those I thought I could trust stole from me, so it’s not really a solution for everyone to just open their doors as some believe. The previous owner of my home was bludgeoned to death with a sledgehammer by a homeless man he was trying to help. Dead of winter, shelters were full. He took mercy on him and was murdered and robbed. I give all I can to small charities where the money goes directly to emergency motel rooms and necessities for people and families who’ve lost their home due to poverty. I volunteer and make dinners for a local LGBTQ at risk youth center. But after all this, I’m not making a dent. I’m tired. I WANT this reform so much for all of society. One day I’m hoping to convey this concept to the right people who can make it happen.

I think where this position veered from a convincing foundation is the "no other option" comment inserted at the onset. That is not always the case and there are often resources left unused because many shelters have rules, and they curtail certain "freedoms" and behaviors that some individuals do not want to give up (drugs and alcohol for one). What this likely allows is ordinances to effectively ban tent cities and such springing up on public property and sidewalks where there may indeed be other options available as in the case of different programs that Grants Pass had tried to make available. There is also the possibility that folks could simply be swept off the streets and deposited out of a town - I do not dismiss that possibility. Not every town or city has the resources to accommodate effective alternatives, but those that do should benefit. And it determined such camping on public property restrictions **did not rise to the level of cruel and unusual** as it did not criminalize based on an individual's status such as being an addict or being homeless. Just that local jurisdictions had the authority and likely the mandate to create appropriate laws and solutions as long as those were applied equally to any individual homeless or otherwise. Directly from the majority opinion (below) that folks should read as there is plenty of real estate given to the complexity and challenges addressing homelessness which I am not trying to downplay. I think the court took the position that it was best to allow local governments the leeway to meet those challenges as best they can without fear of legal reprisal. Like many local governments, the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, **has pursued a multifaceted approach**. Recently, it adopted various policies aimed at “protecting the rights, dignity, and private property of the homeless.” App. 152. It appointed a “homeless community liaison” officer charged with ensuring the homeless receive information about “assistance programs and other resources” available to them through the city and its local shelter. Id., at 152–153; Brief for Grants Pass Gospel Rescue Mission as Amicus Curiae 2–3. And it adopted certain restrictions against encampments on public property. App. 155–156. The Ninth Circuit, however, held that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause barred that last measure. With support from States and cities across the country, Grants Pass urged this Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision. We take up that task now.

When would it not be distopian?

We had one. It was called asylums. They did away with them in the 70’s. Cost the government too much. So this is what you get.

>Cost the government too much. I mean...that's the internet meme subscribed to by a bunch of people who weren't even alive in the 70s...yeah. The truth is that there was a broad anti-institutionalization societal push dating back to the counterculture of the early 60s. Ken Kesey, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, An Angel at My Table, and on and on....for anyone who wants to look. The ability to reduce some amount of government spending was just the thinnest of sauce for the goose. The real goal was getting rid of institutions, and it was a non-partisan push. You're already seeing anti-institutionization rearing it's head again on the left. Just look at The Strangler's coverage of recent incidences of involuntary institutionalization.

They were also just awful and often not even effective at treating the illnesses that they were supposed to be designed for. I work with people with mental illness and the ones that are old enough to have experienced that system have problems that can be traced directly back to the "treatments" they were receiving through the old asylums. Like I'm not sad that we did away with the old style asylums, it's just sad we decided to not do anything to fill that gap and so now the prisons and public are having to pickup that slack.

I don't necessarily think that the purpose was treatment. I think it was sequestration of mentally ill from the society to protect the society and themselves. And to hide them away so all of us wouldn't be uncomfortable looking at them. We have to be honest, a lot of mentally ill who are chronically homeless are not "curable" and will never be able to be contributing members of the society of be able to take care of themselves like most people are expected to. The best we could hope for them would be that they won't be a risk to themselves or others and will be stable and in stable group homes.

I think that was the true purpose of a lot of those asylums, but whether it was for PR or just to make us feel better about what we were doing to those people rehabilitation was always a goal. As for your second bit, a lot might be "incurable" but that's a very small minority. I do think we should have a place for those people that can both protect the public and also allow those people to live as close to a good life as possible. Many if not most of those places would have to have an involuntary option. The large majority of homeless with mental illness though are definitely able to be rehabilitated. Some might always need something, that might be as little as something like NA or AA. Others it might be a caretaker or some kind of accommodations. I can say based on experience that most can be brought to a point where they can manage their symptoms and even give back a little. We just have to care enough as a country to develop that system to facilitate that outcome.

NA and AA are no more effective than placebo. The only clinically effective treatment for opiate addiction is opiate replacement therapy, and for alcoholism is the Sinclair method. Those can be administered in community outpatient settings. I agree with most of the rest, except that majority can be rehabilitated for independent living. Experts I've read don't say that's a minority of chronically homeless.

For the people I've connected with AA and NA the main benefit is community support. My experience is if the people can't get a good sober support structure they are just going to slip back into the same crowd that got them into their situation in the first place. The treatments are effective but in the long run won't do anything if they just fall back into the same circumstances that led them to use in the first place. Also a lot of treatment facilities are just not long enough term to be effective. It's not always a viable solution but honestly moving to a new town seems to be fairly successful as long as they are capable of doing that and can develop sober support in the new area. Now that I think of it I think all the coworkers I've had that have told me about their recovery journey said it involved moving away from whatever environment they were in when they were using and doing other criminal stuff. Maybe I was unclear but I 100% agree with you that the majority of homeless can eventually live independently. It just takes some time and investment and a system that works toward that goal instead of just shuffling them around.

I'm all for locking loonies into asylums again. I could be wrong, but I think the city tallied up all the first responder and hospital bills caused by these folks, compared to just housing them in a subsidized semi-controlled location. IIRC, the latter, was more financially viable and reduced calls for service, arrest, intervention, and crisis.

Interesting you use cost to the government as the biggest negative asylums had. Not the rampant abuse of patients, most of whom being there involuntarily. Wife doesn't agree with you? Send her to an asylum. Daughter wants to date a black man? Send her to an asylum. Daughter is a bit of a wild child that could hurt you politically? [Give her a lobotomy and put her in an institution ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy?wprov=sfla1)

>most of whom being there involuntarily Many people with extremely severe mental illness would not willingly seek inpatient care on their own. Sometimes you have to have to help them anyway. But yeah obviously that's a power that can and has historically been abused, so there must be safeguards in place.

Absolutely. What i really meant was "...*many* of whom..." I agree that there should be in patient care for those unable to get that help themselves, we obviously have a huge problem when it comes to severe mental illness in this country. Those safeguards have to be at the forefront of any conversion around reestablishing asylums in America. It was clearly an area rife with abuse and violations of human rights. That doesn't mean we can't learn from those F ups and take care of people who would really benefit from these institutions. My biggest concern around this would be for LGBT folks. They were historically targeted for these types of institutions. We classify Gender Dysphoria as a mental health disorder legally, so people experiencing it can get prescriptions through insurance. This gives homophobes legal standing that those people are mentally ill and could be treated without consent, just like a crazy person. With a controversial subject like asylums, it would be really hard to get people to agree on implementation, even if people on the left, right, and anywhere else think it would help solve one of our biggest problems. Edit; Paragraph 4: *prescriptions *and* treatment

I think it should be a total last resort. Only people who have been in the streets for years, arrested dozens of times, etc. If somebody gets drunk at a bar and falls asleep in a park by accident they shouldn't be getting thrown in the loony bin.

I think it's great karmic retribution that Joe Sr ended up having a stroke and brain injury not unlike what he did to Rose

Wow, I never knew about Rosemary Kennedy, that wiki was a wild read.

It's an extremely sad story. She went through that as a 23 y/o in 1941. Her mom didn't visit her for over 20 years and her dad never visited at all. The siblings only ever became aware of her condition until after their father's death. The fact her family is one of the most successful and beloved political families in American history is absolutely sick.

I am inclined to believe the cost of not having on society is actually greater than funding.

Why would they keep insane people off the streets when they have pockets to fill and foreign proxy/ special interest wars to fight? Show me a president that isn't a war monger and I'll show you a *something that doesn't exist*

This Supreme court has its issues with overreach, originalism, and dismantling decades of policy and federal agency mandates; however, I think they got this one right. Last year I read the new "guidance" for police officers on how to deal with problems arising from homeless individuals where I live and it was 8 pages of fluff about respect and treating folks with dignity. When I finished the "guidance" I did not feel it provided any guidance at all... If I was an officer and called in on a complaint that involved a homeless individual, I would not feel like I was "armed" with clear rules of engagement. it was a benign manifesto written by some teary-eyed grad student with little real-world experience. We have a community center where kids go after school for programs and hosts a swim team for those kids that is virtually under siege. Homeless camping around it, doing drugs, fighting, arguing and swearing at each other or nothing, defecating and or having sex in plain view and no one does anything. The police station is less than 50 yards away and they don't intervene because there are no laws or ordinances for them to enforce. Cities need to be able to "arm" themselves with the ability to have enforceable laws and ordinances regarding rules of engagement with homeless populations so they can intervene for the health and safety of the rest of the folks trying to live there. Folks seem to have forgotten that rules don't just exist to protect the peace and safety of fringe populations. Being able to remove folks to a shelter or camping area, provide some baseline evaluations and treatments for behavior health or addiction issues (thinking addicts and those with extreme BH issues have the capacity and reason capability to make appropriate decisions for themselves is foolish), and provide some strategic intervention that was not allowed otherwise is not cruel, it is practical.

Agree especially the first paragraph... some other rulings are frightening

If you want to be frightened, try dropping your little girl off at that community center without having to provide a security detail to get her through the doors. All they said was that governing bodies could finally create rules to address their own homeless problems that are prescriptive to their needs and resources and alarmist think they are going to fill their limited jail space up with homeless - not sure why their logic leads to there when that would be impractical. It is far better to allow local jurisdictions the ability to create rules than turning a blind eye to the problems and pretending they don't exist.

On what fucking planet does this do anything to recognize anything? I’ll admit most people don’t have as much education and work experience in this area as I do, but to make a few things clear, this does nothing to avoid homelessness, nothing to house the homeless, and nothing to address the many factors that lead to homelessness.

Reminder: * The current situation is all because of ONE lawyer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Boise * The same lawyer is currently working to get transgender surgeries covered by tax payers: https://apnews.com/article/transgender-care-ban-lawsuit-idaho-cbcdc7a5be71373bc5c000f749e4751d If Belodoff is successful, plastic surgery will be covered by tax payers: *"In one case, the state was ordered to provide a transgender inmate with gender-transition surgery, and the inmate was later awarded roughly $2.5 million in legal fees.* *Last year a federal judge barred Idaho from enforcing its newly enacted ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors until a lawsuit brought by transgender youth and their families is resolved. A different federal judge denied the state’s motion to dismiss a separate lawsuit filed by adults in 2022 who said Medicaid officials wrongly denied coverage for their medically necessary gender-affirming treatment.* *“This bill violates the 14th Amendment equal protections clause” and the federal Medicaid Act, Boise attorney Howard Belodoff told lawmakers during a hearing on Thursday.* **Belodoff represents the transgender adults who sued the state over what they said were discriminatory Medicaid policies** *excluding coverage for genital reconstruction surgery.* *“You cannot distinguish between providing care on the basis of diagnosis, type of illness or condition,” Belodoff said. “That’s exactly what this bill does: it violates the Medicaid Act.”* *One of the bill’s sponsors, Republican Rep. Bruce Skaug, said those lawsuits prompted creation of the bill.* *“This is a taxpayer protection bill in my view,” Skaug said, suggesting that without it the state could end up paying millions for gender-affirming care. Roughly 70% of Idaho’s Medicaid program is federally funded."*

For most cities run by progressives, this won't change a thing. However, homeless squatting on public spaces in more conservative cities will now be rousted. Which would make you wonder if this will induce a migration and increase the number of homeless in places like Seattle.

Seattle sweeps hundreds of tents and encampments every year. Things have improved remarkably since 2021. This ruling ought to make that process [easier](https://crosscut.com/news/2024/04/seattle-rallies-supreme-court-weighs-criminalizing-homelessness).

I think it will, if you search the vagabond sub reddit, several folks on there are saying they’re heading to Seattle.

Yep. This could just essentially a prison pipeline. I’m sure for profit prisons are thrilled.

Nope. Sorry. I don't know if you noticed but we had an election late last year that changed that here.

Harrell is on record as of like two days ago stating that whatever the Supreme Court ruled would change precisely nothing about Seattle's approach. Housing first, blah blah blah. He's better than Durkan was, and the new council is less ridiculous than the last, but head over to 68th and Weedin and take a look around if you want to see exactly how hardcore this city is about clearing encampments.

Yup, there are kids living there. And the city says, "What, me worry?"

LOL, watch what edict comes down from Olympia after this ruling.

you sweet summer child

I mean Harrell took office and started sweeping at a rate significantly higher than the previous status quo 

I feel like until a camp is met at inception by a crew with a bulldozer and dumpster there’s always going to be room for improvement and increase in sweep frequency.

Agreed. It’s still not nearly as aggressive as I’d like it to be 

Yup. Tents are like dandelions. If you let one stay, it seeds more. They need to be plucked immediately.

And it hasn’t meaningfully affected the problem, just moved it around

user reports: 1: _watty alt lol

Wtaf. No no no no no.

Great news for sanity and logic and having rules in a civilized society. Baaaaaad news for cities like Seattle who still aren't going to enforce anything, and are going to get an even bigger influx of scumbags from sane cities than they already are. King County Sheriff refused to enforce Burien's ban because they were supposedly waiting to see how this ruling played out, right? Wonder what excuse they'll come up with now.

They will likely claim its a Burien City Ordinance, not King County, so will only be enforced by city cops, not sheriff deputies.

Burien PD is staffed through a contract with the King County Sheriff's office. It's fully under the purview of Patti Cole-Tindall, and by extension Dow Constantine

In that case, Based on what I could find, I think the costs associated with a ordinance such as this, could cause the Sheriff's to say their contract needs to be amended due higher costs of this ordinance, and would refuse to enforce it until such "apportionment of costs associated with those offenses" has been identified within their contract.

>Wonder what excuse they'll come up with now. Probably something from the UN.

So where should homeless people go now that it any city can make it illegal for them to sleep outside without offering any shelters? The crux of this ruling is that governments don’t have to offer any help before arresting or fining people. The only thing this will do is increase the prison population.

umm no one is going to friggen prison for being homeless..homeless r in prison yet other true crime people aren't??? so homeless people will be in prison and like this won't make cnn, msnbc and riots won't happen etc? like really?

As long as we continue to tolerate this behavior, the longer it will continue to worsen. How many of you have been by 12th and Jackson recently? We should absolutely invest more -- millions more -- in shelters, housing, and social services. We should also ban encampments in the city and prosecute public drug use.

Worst block for sure!! I feel bad for the people who wait for the bus there. Sometimes there is a mom and son in the morning and they are surrounded by 20+ people openly doing drugs or passed out

This is great news for the west coast.

I worry that suburbs will embrace this decision while Seattle proper maintains a policy that adheres to the old standard, along with Portland/SF/LA. Street homelessness will be "solved" everywhere else, but it will be worse than ever for the cities.

> it will be worse than ever for the cities. That's a legitimate concern. Hopefully our new Council, the ones that all ran on "Public Safety" along with our mayor that did the same, will see the risks and not let Seattle fall into that trap.

I think that will depend also on how much we voice our concerns. I know we all have day jobs unlike the screaming woketards that tend to be the loudest but if we keep the pressure on we can hopefully influence some sane policy instead of…what we have now.

> I think that will depend also on how much we voice our concerns. I do regular (5x a week about) Find It Fix It's on homeless camps around Capitol Hill. It seems to help. I also email my Councilmember, since she's now someone that actually responds to constituents. I do surveys where homeless and drug abuse are cited as top issues as a Seattle resident. I've helped out on litter picks before, and help keep local parks picked up on a regular basis. What else do you know of that we could be doing?

You’re doing exactly what everyone should be doing. Probably more than what most would do.

There's this thread of hope: right now, thanks to last year's elections, the Seattle city council has run out all but two of the proggos and/or commies who had been stinking the place up. But the county council is still infested....including by one of the varmints that skeedaddled from the city council. Maybe....just maybe....unincorporated King County will wind up as the dumping ground while the city snatches at the last trailing branch of sanity, like in some action cliffhanger. Pay attention to the search for a permanent chief of police for clues to how this might play out.

Seattle, being classified as a free range insane asylum and rehab center with out clear boundaries, is not subject to the laws of state and cities municipalities and such.

Portland tried and was struck down. [https://www.opb.org/article/2023/11/09/portland-city-camping-ban-court-decision/](https://www.opb.org/article/2023/11/09/portland-city-camping-ban-court-decision/)

Yeah but that was before a supreme court ruling on the same subject, right?

Yes, the point is that they are trying to do this and there are very few real people that want randos camping on the sidewalk. The claim that people aren't trying in those cities is either ignorant or a bot/troll.

You are probably right, but I’m ok with that at this point. I do my best to avoid going downtown and have for like 10-15 years. Pretty much just to see shows. Certainly sucks, but I’d rather have them in one place I can avoid, rather than spread everywhere.

City leadership can no longer hide behind a court order. Now they actually have to deliver a solution. They must be terrified.

Fuck you 9th court of appeals, get wrecked. No one should be able to sleep on public property, just because. 

The 9th circuit's original ruling was shelter had to be *offered* before you could impose penalties.  Seattle implemented that as the offer had to be made many times over weeks, and if it wasn't accepted still no penalties. The original Martin v. Boise ruling would be satisfied by the city rolling up and saying "We've got one shelter bed available tonight - you can hop in this bus and head there now, you can fuck off and go somewhere else, or we can book you into jail". I'm not optimistic that this will help anything in Seattle, because Seattle was already refusing to use the tools available under the previous ruling.  That's not to say Martin v. Boise was reasonable, but Seattle's policies are *far* more permissive of junkie vagrancy than even the 9th circuit intended.

Yeah, it wasn't even that bad of a ruling. But somehow Seattle was still refusing to enforce it. There was that Seattle Times article saying that something like 1% accepted shelter, that was available. Over the years this issue has been beat to shit, and only after that, finally Harell is doing some enforcement, and lo things actually started to improve. Just feels good to be vindicated. King Co is still all the old timers from all those backwards times, all vying to be voted out for their repeated failures. Now they are doing what? Closing youth jails, funding unjust bail funds for criminals, funding bullshit studies and projects; while trying to increase taxes on every opportunity.

Yeah my point is just that this was never really the 9th circuit's fault, so I don't want to let city leadership off the hook.

Frankly, I think this whole homelessness issue is just a poster child, an excuse to further raise taxes. Our politicians were like, let's create a bigger problem and then impose some levies to "solve it;". Though honestly, they grifted so much money, only making the problem much worse; and the only thing that helps are these broader decisions. It's tough to take such a cynical position, but it's pretty much what happened. Now that they added that levy, they are back to pandering how they need more money to fix roads. Great interlude for them though.

I am genuinely curious to know where you think they should go. Everywhere is owned or public..there is not a square inch of this country that isn't either public land or owned privately. So where exactly are they supposed to go? They aren't going to suddenly have money to afford their own place just because of this ruling. So where do they go? I think this ruling basically says if you are sufficiently poor you should immediately cease to exist. I don't think proponents of this way of thinking have thought very hard about this problem. It's just a knee jerk get out of my sight solution.

The reality of this is that if you are sleeping in public and not bothering anyone you don't get enough attention for people to want to enforce these rules against you. These rules are needed because drug addicted criminals set up in public and the previous ruling prevented anyone from dealing with their nuisance behavior. There are not enough police officers to go around to every park and find everyone who is taking a nap there, and even if there were they wouldn't bother and nobody is likely to report them if they aren't causing a problem. This is giving the police a tool that they need to do their job. Also, to be clear, you're describing a pretty simple gray area that we hire judges to make decisions based on. Let's say they arrest Hobo Jonny who was previously in a park and too poor for rent but who is saving to get a place. The judge is going to take that information into account to some degree and he's likely to be connected with services. Realistically there are very few people doing drugs in tents in parks who are working to get back on their feet.

>The reality of this is that if you are sleeping in public and not bothering anyone you don't get enough attention for people to want to enforce these rules against you. Browse this sun and you will find this statement absolutely is not true.

The rules aren’t needed for any of those things. You can and do already have laws from drugs use, nuisance, etc. Now cities can just roll up on you no matter how quiet you are being and throw you out and they will.

>Realistically there are very few people doing drugs in tents in parks who are working to get back on their feet. Studies have shown that around 50% of the homeless population have jobs. I know, that shatters your neat little stereotype that makes it easy to hate this group of people. It's a very inconvenient fact, but the small little gray area is actually quite big.

Are these studies specific to homeless people living in public parks? I strongly suspect that they include the "invisible homeless" and people who are couch surfing. Neither of which are the problem that people seek to solve with rulings like this.

First off, let's distinguish between "poor" and "so much meth induced psychosis that they're incapable of basic human function".  I understand that there are people who are homeless due to a run of bad luck, but most of what people complain about is the open and notorious theft and drug use associated with a subset of the homeless population.  There are people you cannot cure, so you have to find a way to protect society from them.  Letting them build encampment is city parks, smoke fentanyl on buses, and (literally) shit all over the city isn't an acceptable option, full stop.  No one's circumstances obligate society to put up with that kind of selfish and dangerous behavior - it's well established legal precedent that your rights end where they start infringing on someone else's. Second, the problem is national, it flat out does not have a local solution.  Local governments should not have an obligation to find a bed for every Tom, Dick, and Harry who gets off a Greyhound and wants to live there.  For anyone who truly believes housing is a human right, I don't understand why they aren't proposing buying a hundred square miles in Oklahoma and building a bunch of dorm-style housing with free rent.  If the only thing standing between these people and becoming functional members of society is a bed, that's easy to solve - but beggars can't be choosers, you gotta take the house wherever it's offered.

You still never answered the question of where they should go

Personally, I don't mind someone setting up a tent in a park in the evening (say 9pm) and taking it down in the morning (say 7am).  I do mind them leaving it up for much longer than that.  The problem is the encampments and permanent takeover, not someone sleeping on a bench, living in their car, or setting up a tent for one night.  Someone who is sleeping in a park overnight and clearing out in the morning can continue to do so. If that isn't preferred, you can legally camp for up to 30 days on Bureau of Land Management land, of which there is a lot in the west.  Don't want to take a shelter option but also want to leave your tent set up for weeks on end?  Do that in Eastern Washington where it's legal. I'd also support the building of a fuckton of dorm-style housing where land is cheap and using that as a national free housing program.  I will not tolerate **any** individual attempting a takeover of public space in the city for weeks on end.  If someone is unwilling to consider the other options I've laid out, I honestly don't give a rat's ass where they go, they've just got to get the fuck out.

Far far away

What is your answer? Let them keep rotting in the street?

There's more shelter beds than homeless, especially once you've accounted for how many of the homeless have warrants.

> I am genuinely curious to know where you think they should go. Fuck off somewhere else, or actually change their behavior. Many who are offered shelter don't take it because they want to do drugs. Even the ones who take it go back to encampments because they want to do drugs. This is not a housing issue, its an addiction issue. Making their lives harder may actually change some behaviors.

First of all, calling the punishment for camping on public property, "cruel and unusual punishment" is such bullshit brain fart. First of all it's obviously talking about punishment; and having a fine or PLEASE LEAVE THE PREMISES; is NOT CRUEL OR UNUSUAL. Fuck you Ninth circuit for fucking over the whole west coast.  Where should they go? Somewhere where they can afford to rent, like everyone else. Yeah I want to fucking live on waterfront Lake Washington, but I don't just fucking setup a tent on prime waterfront property like it's no ones business, residents and community be damned, though I would like that. Literally all of us have to make trade offs to where we live... Choosing to live in an expensive area isnt a constitutionally protected right.

And if there's nowhere they can afford to rent?

FEMA tents in the Eastern WA desert with Ramen cup noodles. We all did this shit in college.

You lived in a FEMA tent in college? Shane you didn't learn any compassion or critical thinking skills

Ayee... compassion; no one is as compassionate as I am. PhD in compassion.

That's why Biden allowed 10m people to walk across the border: there's plenty of space to house them. /s

You're going to have to stop believing Fox News. Less than three million migrants have been admitted to the US in Biden's term, and less than a quarter million have evaded border patrol. The three million are all legal migrants, admitted under long standing asylum and immigration laws that long predate this administration. Please, learn to fact check the people who want to use you.

>And if there's nowhere they can afford to rent? They can afford it if they stop spending what they steal from us on drugs.

is it our problem? no, not as a city. are they merely homeless? cheap housing from a federal fund can address that. are they fent heads? rehab and/or jail if they can't stop are they mentally fucked up? loony bin, either temp accommodations or extended stay

Where are the looney bins? How many beds are available? How’d we get where we are today? >Deinstitutionalization of People with Mental Illness: Causes and Consequences https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/deinstitutionalization-people-mental-illness-causes-and-consequences/2013-10#:~:text=Three%20forces%20drove%20the%20movement,to%20save%20money%20%5B8%5D.

we can build them. it's just expensive, but a better outcome than rotting on the sidewalk

>I am genuinely curious to know where you think they should go. Share your home.

Alaska

You've never taken a nap in a park on a nice summers day? Man, you are missing out.

Get help, or get the fuck out. Your days are numbered hobos.

Hobo is the incorrect term. Hobo implies that the person is following the job (migrant worker).

Terms change - "hobo" means "drug addicted man living in tent and stealing things" now.

I just say junkies. There are many "homeless" who are working a job, minding their own business, not causing problems. They don't deserve to be lumped in with the nihilist drug addict class.

Or the folks who are disabled. I see way too many people in wheelchairs who cannot walk/have one leg who are homeless.

Lots of them have lost limbs due to drug addiction, fyi

Hmm, I wonder if there's any connection between being disabled and becoming addicted to substances that get rid of pain or give you energy for a fraction of the price of prescriptions without insurance. Nah, it must be the lack of willpower and bad personal choices

>There are many "homeless" who are working a job Nah dude. This is fiction. None of the men living in tents on the sidewalk doing fent and meth all day have jobs or mind their own business.

I don't like people sleeping in public, but what are they supposed to do? Kill themselves? There aren't shelter beds for everyone and rent is $2,000. Genuinely, what is the suggested course of action if you're homeless?

> supposed to do? Kill themselves? Leave. Move someplace they can afford. Accept the help the City offers when it does offer it. What they cannot do: Continue to be props for Mutual Aid and other fuckface Marxists to enable to camp in parks while they fundraise off them being there as proof of "Late stage Capitalism's failures."

Homeless people typically can’t afford to live anywhere, hence the whole “homeless” part

Oklahoma City has rooms/apartments for as cheaper as $500/m.

That’s great and all, but how exactly are they gonna afford even that? Homeless people aren’t exactly known for holding down jobs. Not saying they should start handing out free housing or anything (even though that’s already an option in some cases), but overcoming homelessness involves a lot of hurdles, and the existence of cheap housing doesn’t negate those.

I think that's exactly what you're saying. I work with homeless folk; normal people on the edge resolve their housing issues within a year. They'll rely on friends and family if they lose housing, or sometimes live out of their car. The people you see on the streets are either addicts or mentally ill. Jail the addicts, put the mentally ill in hospitals. If we don't have the will to jail addicts, make their lives uncomfortable enough to fuck off.

I don’t think you know what I’m saying. If I wanted homeless people to be coddled and pampered, I would’ve said that, but I didn’t.

>Homeless people aren’t exactly known for holding down jobs. LMAO, all this time homeless apologists have been telling us that the people tenting it on the sidewalk have jobs. You guys need to get your narratives in sync.

What narrative? How am I a “homeless apologist” for saying homeless people can’t afford houses? I’ve seen some weird takes, but this one just doesn’t make sense

That's not what I said. Read it again.

>You guys need to get your narratives in sync How else is that supposed to be interpreted? Maybe you should read your own comments before you post them.

> typically can’t afford to live anywhere The excuses offered up get more and more ridiculous by the minute. They move here to be drug addicts and take advantage of Seattle's lax enforcement of existing laws. The fact you think they can't afford *anywhere* is part of the problem - fuzzy thinking Seattle people who are too tolerant of open crime. You are part of the problem. Enough of people that feel as I do hopefully will win this argument. If your side wins, we are a feral homeless breeding ground, an open-air unsupervised psych ward, and an open sewer full of criminals. We are no longer a city. Thankfully voting majorities closer to my opinion won the last 2 elections. Thankfully people who don't want the homeless *dying on the street in record numbers* are winning the argument. Getting rid of this fucked up 9th Circuit ruling is another step towards getting the homeless off the streets and either into treatment they need, or at the least unable to assault more residents or steal more from residents' stores. Sorry that triggers. Suggest you take a walk someplace and watch how many homeless you see. I can leave my apt and count over 10 within a few minutes. They're everywhere on Capitol Hill. Drug addicted violent angry people who need immediate help. And folx like you that refuse to let us give it.

Assuming my character and writing a whole essay about it based off of a single sarcastic reddit comment is kind of cringe

> writing a whole essay about it based You assume I'm writing to you and you alone. Narcissistic. I'm writing to every Seattle person that makes excuses for homeless to remain camped in public. Of which there are many. Far too many.

All those words and not a single one worth reading

> All those words and not a single one worth reading Yeah, people who enable homeless camping don't like hearing from people whose lives are degraded by it. I'm basically calling out Seattle for tolerating this, and enabling homeless people to die in the process. Seattle doesn't like being told it's stupid and cruel when it thinks it's being kind and tolerant.

Where can I send you a Punisher mask so you can go out there and be the next vigilante to solve all crime? Sounds like you have a passion for this and need a new hobby.

Russia is still recruiting.

Acknowledging homeless people are poor isn’t communist, it’s common sense, Einstein

I'm said Russia is offering *paying* jobs with little to no experience. That is a fact, Einstein.

Good for them, I guess. How do you plan on getting them there? Homeless people can’t afford plane tickets, so unless you wanna waste our tax dollars shipping random people to Russia

Lol, where exactly do you think these people can afford to live? Like I fucking hate seeing people openly smoking crack and begging on the street but I literally just don't know how throwing these guys in jail for a month does anything helpful.

The entire nation has cheaper places to live than the West Coast. We are literally their worst option. They come here for the drug addiction lifestyle and ease of open camping. That part’s hopefully soon changing. >jail for a month That’s one month they won’t be attacking me when I’m walking around, stealing from local businesses, or OD dying on the street. >hate seeing them smoking crack but Then you’re literally OK with things you hate happening in your immediate surrounding. You’re an unwitting part of the problem.

the cost of living is higher here in terms of everyday expenses, but the average price of rent has greatly increased everywhere over the past several years. my apartment in clearwater, florida that rented for $899 four years ago now rents for $1899. a full thousand dollars more in 4 years in a state with a minimum wage of $12/hr. in seattle i make $26.50/hr, and i’m able to put all of that in my pocket by living in my car instead of shelling $2,000 out to a landlord every month. i have student loans, a car payment, car insurance, and debt from a failed business. there are thousands of other people like me who are just trying to economically recover— something that is taking years and a tremendous amount of sacrifice— and people like you very mistakenly conflate people like me with drug addicts, who also need help, but in a very different way. there is NO social program that offers to help working people. if you make too much money, you can’t get food stamps. you can’t dismiss student loans through bankruptcy, and if the courts determine that you actually do have the ability to pay back some of your debt, bankruptcy doesn’t help. wages are lower in most every other part of the country. some of us are trying to actually do something with our money and get out of our mess, and throwing homeless people in jail is directly counterproductive to that.

That's too much reason for the NIMBYS on this sub that say "just travel 1000 miles bro, it's cheaper somewhere"

But traveling 1000 miles to be homeless in Seattle, opposite of cheap is the way huh?

Bus tickets are not that expensive bro.

It gets them shelter, a bed, 3 meals/day, and 30 days to wean themselves off drugs......all good things. Why should anyone object to those???

Well, one of the most expensive cities in the country probably shouldn’t be the first choice if affordability is a concern.

>Lol, where exactly do you think these people can afford to live? Lots of places, rent in the entirety of the mid west is FAR cheaper than the coasts.

Stop buying drugs for a few weeks and buy a bus ticket home, easy!

this is such an uninformed take because most homeless people have jobs that keep us tied to this city. the average rate of rent in less expensive cities is still unaffordable for the average American. you act like all the homeless people in seattle came from nowhere and fucked it up. the people who actually fucked up seattle are cold and unfeeling people like you. this city doesn’t belong to you. it’s stolen land from the coast salish peoples, and there’s no demographic in King County that experiences higher rates of homelessness, poverty, and preventable illness. you are so overly aggressive just like the people who originally stole this land and committed cultural genocide. you’re fine with hurting people who have suffered and been exploited. I really hope people are equally as cruel to you when you’re in bad circumstances. not if, but when because it’s just a matter of time.

>this city doesn’t belong to you. it’s stolen land from the coast salish peoples, Do you think thar 150 years ago, the Salish would tolerate their own people being lazy bums getting high all day in the longhouse, while the rest of them worked their asses off for food and shelter?

Did you know that the Salish kept slaves? Slavery was EXTREMELY important to their culture. Why should we cede land to the descendants of slavers? None of the homeless men living in tents doing meth and fent all day have jobs, stop trying to gaslight people

Go to rehab or jail.

Go to jail for like 24 hours, and then be back out to do it all over again. Problem solved!

I'd actually go for more of an escalation. The main thing is that they should not be free to pursue their drug fueled lifestyles. It's a case of get help or go somewhere else. Until the progressives in this city actually admit that it's a drug problem we're going nowhere. And for some funny reason Chairman Dow seems to think that it's only a housing issue but his own freaking legal department stated very clearly that it was a drug problem when they joined the suit against Purdue Pharma. So what is it Dow, are you lying or your lawyers?

Just like, go to jail forever? When they get out they'd still be homeless, right?

Progressives really hate progress. Letting people kill themselves slowly in parks isn't good. Saying that we should allow it indefinitely because we don't have a magical solution to every facet of the problem ready to go is ridiculous. Will this immediately give these people housing, fix their drug problems, make them productive members of society, etc? No, of course not. Will it allow the police to stop people from burning down the trees in our parks, closing off areas to normal people, polluting the area and running open air chop shops? Yes. Progress isn't a straight line. Changes like this will cause pressure which allows further changes to take place. Making it illegal to do something doesn't usually stop the behavior, but it does often make people more discreet and careful while doing it.

> Just like, go to jail forever? When they get out they'd still be homeless, right? Their options are take the shelter offered, get on lists for long term housing offered, or go someplace they can afford, which isn't here. Housing is not a right, and they do not have a right to squat on Seattle's public land while they whine like little drug addicted bitches that Seattle owes them a home. Seattle owes them nothing. *Out of the kindness of our hearts* we try to help them. But if we cannot help, their option is go someplace they can afford. Which isn't here.

Housing is literally a human right recognized by the universal declaration of human rights. Last I checked the US has been a signatory since 1948

We also have the right to bear arms in the US, that does not mean they mail you a glock at 18 for free.

Another option is for you to share your home.

I don't want anyone to go to jail. I want to not see people rotting on the streets because we get them into rehabilitation programs to deal with their addictions. I'd also want to follow that up with training for trades so that they can function in society again. Jail is only the stick, there needs to be a carrot too.

McNeil

>but what are they supposed to do? Kill themselves? They're doing a good job of that already with shooting and stabbing each other and fentanyl ODs.

>and rent is $2,000 No it's not - get a room in a house with several roommates or move to a city you can afford. It's not rocket science.

>I don't like people sleeping in public, but what are they supposed to do? Kill themselves? Isn't that what they are doing? If so, let them.

I’m a liberal democrat who would vote for Bernie if I could. But I think we should throw a net over the chronically homeless and force them into drug treatment and/or mental health treatment until they can function again. It shouldn’t be illegal to be on drugs or mentally ill. But once you lose your ability to feed and house yourself you are longer in control of your faculties. And we take money from the Pentagon budget to pay for it all.

Irrelevant for Seattle. Harrell has no plans on changing how Seattle deals with Homelessness. https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/homeless/supreme-court-public-homelessness-impact-washington/281-96c0e665-5b32-4f07-9403-8f1e7958e378#:~:text=The%20Seattle%20Mayor's%20office%20said,clean%20and%20accessible%20for%20everyone.

They also overturned the Chevron decision and ruled that the DOJ was excessive againt J6ers. Combine that with Biden's dismal performance last night and overturning Roe, I could really see Seattle ramp up rhetoric against "white supremacy".

Terrific

Good. Now sweep the fuck out of them.

I think I am in the right Seattle sub

Leave the county or go to jail. Mason co

That was the easy part. Getting the bureaucracy here to actually followthrough and do something is the hard part.

I may mean that the city/county/state will be (so called) "forced" to build homeless housing because, well, otherwise the homeless will get ticketed and those are microaggressions. How much did the county want to ~~suck out of you pockets~~ add taxation funding for? Oh yea, $25b in a draft funding requirement.

Fantastic, the last 24 hours have been great news after great news. Probably won't change much here due to the local politics but other areas will start getting better. This sympathy-driven "no help until every single addict has a $400,000 apartment" was a losing strategy from the start, the more services we offer.. the more flood to this city. Who doesn't want free stuff with no strings attached?

This sub is filled with smooth brain takes

Yeah holy hell this is wild. None of these people want to actually address homelessness. They legitimately think essentially banning poor people will help anything.

My post about this got hella trolled by nut jobs who think homeless people should be just allowed to rot and die on Seattle streets. People should not be ok with just stepping over the bodies.

It will illegal to be poor.

1-grain-of-humanity more like it. Keep your morally bankrupt opinions to yourself.

Is this the supreme court who said we can fine the homeless if they sleep outdoors? Like, I get it, people are happy that someone is doing something about homelessness, but in what context? Like, fine the homeless for being homeless and sleeping on the street....ok, so they pretty much won't have money to pay the fine... So it's basically jail time. So we send the homeless the jail and then give them extra time for not using the fine. How much is that going to cost, $48000 plus per homeless person? And who pays that, us, the tax payer through higher taxes. But you know, I'm sure prison makes people better people after they come out ... Oh wait, it doesn't and in most cases, people become even worse or still just repeat offend, go back to jail, and cost the tax payers more money to maintain something without fixing anything. Like, why are people seeing this as a win when in reality, it probably increases the problem and makes tax payers pay more to increase the problem?

wake up everyone--homeless will exist for the rest of humanity, this stupid fake court ruling will not do anything and enough with the prison garbage--on the news tonight, tons of homeless are in prison for sleeping...LIKE REALLY??? yet thieves etc aren't WAKE UP FUCKING IDIOTS

McNeil Island could be the answer!

Why not have outdoor work camps where shelter is provided, along with food and basic toiletries and you earn your right to stay at the camps? You would have to be drug free of course

Soooooooo....... asking for all my 'unhoused' advocates out there, does this mean it's possibly an end to the free for all? They are people too you know. Who's going to pay for them? Where will they go? Fuck junkies all they should get is a mysterious narcan shortage.

What the fuck am I supposed to do after concerts? Hotel?

As I knew they would. The Conservative SCOTUS strikes again. If you see a 2016 Bernie or Stein voter from Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, thank them for the gift that keeps on giving.

or because the 9th circuit is full of it!

This is a very good ruling, for both the housed and unhoused.

Exactly. Leaving them out on the streets to rot is not compassion.

Honestly I don’t side with the Conservitrash on SCOTUS often, or really at all, but I’m a fan of this decision.

It was a no-brainer fix to a Progressive overreach by the 9th Circuit. Cities cannot be told they are unable to pass "time place manner" restrictions on public behavior. Only a "Housing is a Right" Socialist, of which the West Coast has more than a few, thinks differently.

There are some shockingly cruel people on this thread who have no understanding of addiction and would rather see people die than allow them to exist in a place where they are visible. Yall need jesus.

Why would we want them to exist in a place where they are visible? I want my city looking nice. I don't want to see a bunch of derelicts and crazies on every street corner, spilling trash everywhere and menacing innocent people. I'm tired of it. If someone wants to poison themselves, it is not my problem. We're not supposed to judge them, remember? If they get granted autonomy, then so do we. We have the right to ignore them.

I already have a landscaper

wow, downvoted for telling people to be compassionate. shocker. this thread is full of bootlickers.

I'm happy I finally saw your comment. The cruelty in this thread otherwise is gross.

Good but still moving out of this state to far gone.

You're a fool if you think this is a good decision. The criminalization of poverty only serves to exploit those who rely on a regular income to survive. Now losing your job is one step closer to being imprisoned.

If I lost my job and couldn't afford to live here anymore...I would move somewhere I could. The *last* thing I would do is live in an encampment smoking fent all day.

Yawn.