Supreme Court blocks prosecuting homeless

[WalkaboutTed]

This has applicability to urban  vandwellers:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling that cities cannot prosecute the homeless if there are not enough shelter beds available has been left standing by th Supreme Court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/us/boise-idaho-homeless-supreme-court.html?searchResultPosition=2

 

[jacqueg]

This should light a fire under some posteriors.

 

[JohnnyM]

Yeah, this is a big, big deal with lots of ripple effects on the way. Several U.S. cities are way up in arms about it.

More news to come.

Johnny

 

[Qxxx]

It seems to me that saying ... “As long as there is no option of sleeping indoors,..." ... is not quite the same thing as giving a free card for people to live long term in cars and tents. So ????

 

[WanderingRose]

The ruling seems to apply to sleeping out of doors, not sleeping in vehicles, tho I think regardless there will be ramifications.

Even if there are adequate shelter beds in any given community, not all sleeping on the streets would choose to stay in a shelter.

Going to be an issue to watch and see how it unfolds.

 

[eDJ_]

My Van of Ohio registration is listed as a "House Vehicle".  Would that mean that if I'm out in it that I'm homeless?  I know when I'm out of Ohio that it goes by the law of the land. (like some other state or locality) 

How long before we start hearing,  "Achtung !  Let me see your papers".   I'm rather fiscally conservative but socially liberal,
yet recent times seem to be turning to a socially conservative trend.

 

[crofter]

For vehicles, it comes down to parking ordinances at the local level. That would be beyond this measure I think.   ~crofter

 

[DLTooley]

The ruling should have a general positive effect on van dwellers, urban and rural. Bringing up such cases whenever a Leo wants to chat is a good addition to the conversation.

 

[mjbeam]

If you live in a vehicle by choice, you may be houseless, but not homeless.

 

[Spicoli]

I don't understand how this applies to vehicle dwellers since the ruling addresses sleeping and camping outdoors in public versus sleeping inside a vehicle in public. I can see a tiny degree of relation to us vehicle dwellers but it seems to be almost perpendicular. Now. That said. I could see a similar movement like this blowing up into cities going on the offensive against urban vehicle dwellers that choose to live on public streets in their vehicles. In fact, I think that already is a thing in some places. However, despite all this I am glad to see the courts favor the homeless that are, in most cases, struggling with so many other very serious issues.

 

[crofter]

Oregon state capital responds with tickets and tearing down tent camps. Sad, really sad, and always in the teeth of a big storm.  ~crofter

[font=arial, sans-serif]"Lt. Debbie Aguilar, spokeswoman for the Salem Police Department, said officials will start posting downtown-area camps Tuesday.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]The posts give people 24 hours to remove their camps. Members of encampments also would be told they can't camp on city property any longer, Aguilar said.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]Salem police planned to work with social service agencies, the Salem Housing Authority and others to reach out to those affected by the ban, she said.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]"Ultimately those who refuse to leave could be cited for violating the city ordinance," Aguilar said.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]City of Salem workers will start cleaning up the area as it is cleared out, she said.[/font]
[font=arial, sans-serif]"Again, our goal is voluntary compliance of this ordinance as we understand that citations or arrests aren’t a long-term solution," Aguilar said."[/font]


[font=arial, sans-serif]https://www.statesmanjournal.com/st...s-shelters-oregon-capitol-protest/2664970001/[/font]

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/st...recast-rain-possible-flooding-nws/2667320001/

 

[crofter]

Previous policy in another Oregon city, estimated 2,000 tent camping there in 2015, but still clearing camps, even way out of town because some people feel "unsafe."   ~crofter

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/...zes-homeless-camping-portland-oregon/1255653/

 

[crofter]

... not all sleeping on the streets would choose to stay in a shelter....

I would choose sleeping in the comfy and safe van. "Parking" is still the streets, at least in Oregon. Many have been moved-on this year by the sheriffs, and campers who have been here a long time. What is happening here makes me think of the clearings, only thing they have not come up with yet is transporting people in boats, they have already tried issuing bus tickets out of town. Then they destroyed the camps that sprang up at the other end of the bus tickets.

I hope the sheriffs stop what they are doing and comply with this court ruling.  ~crofter

 

[maki2]

If you live in a vehicle but not by choice you are homeless? That is a very fine line but the truth is that many people on the Cheap RV Living forum felt they had no other option of a place to live but to live in their vehicle. So it can't really just be about it being a choice one makes.

Is being homeless only a feeling? In terms of sociological norms the answer to that is that it is not just an emotional feeling, or based on making a deliberate decision to live in a vehicle. There is a standard of living that is not being met that is associated with the word homeless. You can actually live in a house and still be considered homeless by definition. You can be living in a vehicle by choice and be considered homeless. But you can live in vehicle and not be considered as homeless if it meets certain standards.

"Homelessness is defined as living in housing that is below the minimum standard or lacks secure tenure. ... People who are homeless are most often unable to acquire and maintain regular, safe, secure and adequate housing due to a lack of, or an unsteady income."

There are of course also a set of definitions for what describes the minimum standard for housing. Just remember that is not the same thing as the building codes adopted by cities and counties because those do vary by location and they are ever evolving. You can live in a vehicle and not be considered homeless if your housing is adequate and secure. But not all vehicles meet even a bare minimum of being adequate housing. Those are the persons that HOWA is focused on helping by improving their living conditions to raise it up to a level of being more compliant with the concept of adequate housing that is also safe. The are trying to boost them up out of that below standard situation.

 

[crofter]

"[font=lora, georgia, times, serif] Appearance is evil. Truth always lies beneath." from the dweller account below.    ~crofter[/font]

[font=lora, georgia, times, serif]https://www.koin.com/news/human-interest/my-mom-was-homeless-a-daughters-message-of-compassion/ [/font]

 

[DLTooley]

Urban homelessness without a vehicle is a legal concentration camp, rural vehicle living is freedom, though they are working on that.

 

[Qxxx]

Maybe this is too simplistic an idea, but Europe and the middle east have more or less permanent "refugee camps". Why can't the cities here setup officially designated areas for tent and van campers, police the areas to provide a semblance of safety, and setup a scheme for health conditions, like portable toilets and sinks? Has anyone actually tried that?

 

[highdesertranger]

"Urban homelessness without a vehicle is a legal concentration camp,"

really, that is an insult to all people that were and are in actual concentration camps. I hope you realize that today there are millions of people in China that are in ACTUAL concentration camps. go buy cheap Chinese products and then spewing this nonsense, is BS.

highdesertranger

 

[WanderingRose]

Maybe this is too simplistic an idea, but Europe and the middle east have more or less permanent "refugee camps". Why can't the cities here setup officially designated areas for tent and van campers, police the areas to provide a semblance of safety, and setup a scheme for health conditions, like portable toilets and sinks? Has anyone actually tried that?

This is an excellent idea in many respects, but is more a 3rd world solution I think than could ever take hold here.

There isn’t a want or stomach for those kinds of settlements in this country, which would probably encourage more people to live in non traditional housing.

I can’t see it ever happening, tho don’t know what the solution is.

I do believe we need more affordable housing, as in subsidized, which would support adequate housing for those with lower incomes for whatever reason.

A lot of older motels and hotels around the country have become simple, semi permanent housing, and I think we could stand more of that.

In addition to subsidies.

 

[Qxxx]

Designated and administered areas may sound 3rd world, but seems like a better solution than just letting them live under bridges and throwing their poop in the bushes, or running them out of town on a rail. Even van dwellers on city streets are probably tossing their poop in the bushes or into trashcans and letting their grey water run down the streets.