Outlawing homelessness: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson

[RZehr]

What’s your thoughts on this case, this issue?

On April 22nd 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States heard the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass. This sets the stage for the most significant Supreme Court case about the rights of homeless people in decades. At its core, this case will decide whether cities are allowed to punish people for things like sleeping outside with a pillow or blanket, even when there are no safe shelter options. A decision will be made by June 30th, 2024.

Johnson v. Grants Pass is a court case originally filed in 2018 that determined it is cruel and unusual punishment to arrest or ticket people for sleeping outside when they have no other safe place to go. The case started in Grants Pass, Oregon when the city began issuing tickets to people sleeping in public, even when there were not enough safe, accessible shelter beds.

https://johnsonvgrantspass.com/

I don’t know what to think. Seems like a city should be able to clear out camping on public land. In the other hand, if someone has nowhere to go, they have no where to go. How can simply existing be illegal? If you have nowhere to go, and can’t sleep on public land and can’t trespass on private land, then what?

[Ken]

What’s your thoughts on this case, this issue?

On April 22nd 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States heard the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass. This sets the stage for the most significant Supreme Court case about the rights of homeless people in decades. At its core, this case will decide whether cities are allowed to punish people for things like sleeping outside with a pillow or blanket, even when there are no safe shelter options. A decision will be made by June 30th, 2024.

Johnson v. Grants Pass is a court case originally filed in 2018 that determined it is cruel and unusual punishment to arrest or ticket people for sleeping outside when they have no other safe place to go. The case started in Grants Pass, Oregon when the city began issuing tickets to people sleeping in public, even when there were not enough safe, accessible shelter beds.

https://johnsonvgrantspass.com/

I don’t know what to think. Seems like a city should be able to clear out camping on public land. In the other hand, if someone has nowhere to go, they have no where to go. How can simply existing be illegal? If you have nowhere to go, and can’t sleep on public land and can’t trespass on private land, then what?

I think there are common sense middle ground alternatives that neither side seems to be willing to consider.

First, the 9th Circuit decision in Boise was a ridiculous and absolutist position that basically said cities couldn't prohibit public camping if they lacked enough PUBLIC shelter beds for every homeless person in the city. They couldn't count private shelter beds, they couldn't count campgrounds, or anything else. That decision basically hamstrung every city on the west coast.

But the Grants Pass position that they should just be able to arrest homeless in the parks while doing nothing else is equally absolutist on the other side.

A more reasonable middle ground position would be to allow cities to clear homeless encampments site by site. So if you have 20 people in a particular park, as long as you find places to put just those 20 people you can clear them out and fine/jail them if they refuse to move. Then you move on to the next encampment and do the same.

Also the standard shouldn't be providing shelter beds. If people are camping on the street then as long as you provide a better alternative to that it should be legal. In other words, build some public campgrounds on the edge of town with porta potties, dumpsters, and running water and as long as they have space you can roust people from camping in public parks.

There are also lots of people who actually don't want to be in shelters. They prefer to camp. Fine, let them camp but in designated and controlled areas, not public parks. The city of Vancouver WA is actually doing that. They have a designated homeless camp that is in a former commuter park-and-ride lot that I bike by every day on the way to work. They opened it during the pandemic. Here is the Google street view: https://maps.app.goo.gl/TsVEN53n7Ttsex5K6 It is mostly old campers but some people living in cars and tents and is pretty spotless, not a bit of garbage anywhere and seems to be well managed. That sort of thing should count and if cities provide it they should be able to roust homeless of out of parks and sidewalks without needing to have shelter beds for every single homeless person in the city.

Finally it should not be that hard to actually build shelter housing on the edges of towns. Turkey, which is a much poorer country than the US managed to house several million homeless Syrian refugees on its borders. That is vastly more than the number of homeless in the entire US. Turkish refugee camps look like this. Put these up in commercial/industrial areas on the edges of towns and if people don't want to use them fine, they can move on or find something else. But what they CAN'T do is keep camping in public on the streets and in the parks.

[temporal1]

What’s your thoughts on this case, this issue?

On April 22nd 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States heard the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass. This sets the stage for the most significant Supreme Court case about the rights of homeless people in decades. At its core, this case will decide whether cities are allowed to punish people for things like sleeping outside with a pillow or blanket, even when there are no safe shelter options. A decision will be made by June 30th, 2024.

Johnson v. Grants Pass is a court case originally filed in 2018 that determined it is cruel and unusual punishment to arrest or ticket people for sleeping outside when they have no other safe place to go. The case started in Grants Pass, Oregon when the city began issuing tickets to people sleeping in public, even when there were not enough safe, accessible shelter beds.

https://johnsonvgrantspass.com/

I don’t know what to think.

Seems like a city should be able to clear out camping on public land. In the other hand, if someone has nowhere to go, they have no where to go. How can simply existing be illegal? If you have nowhere to go, and can’t sleep on public land and can’t trespass on private land, then what?

In the past, GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT along with sustainable cost of living worked quite nicely.

[Josh]

Incidentally, the "nowhere to go" means people who aren't welcome at homeless shelters because they keep smoking, drinking, starting fights, shooting up drugs or dealing drugs.

I do not think people who do the above such things have a sovereign right to turn public property into their own private property.

[steve-in-kville]

Look up Kinsington in Philadelphia. It is nicknamed Zombieland now.

[Ken]

Incidentally, the "nowhere to go" means people who aren't welcome at homeless shelters because they keep smoking, drinking, starting fights, shooting up drugs or dealing drugs.

I do not think people who do the above such things have a sovereign right to turn public property into their own private property.

I agree with you 100%.

That is why I think cities should provide authorized camping spaces on the edge of town someplace out of the way and those who chose not to seek shelter or camp in authorized locations can get arrested or run out of town.

[barnhart]

Dealing with human behavior is complex and simplistic solutions are not easily found. The ability of governments to criminalize behavior typically outpaces their ability to enforce. Often the approach is to make the unwanted behavior more difficult or uncomfortable than other options.

NYC has a subsidized housing program for low or no income people but they guard it by making the intake system very long and undesirable to encourage participants to choose other options. If it becomes too difficult or unavailable, people give up and go back to the street, if it's too easy, it is quickly abused. So there is a sort of dance between the unhoused and law enforcement and policy makers.

Smaller towns or cities often do not have the will or resources to create such a system so it is easier to simply drive that population away and hope they take their problems with them.

I doubt a full ban on the homeless could survive constitutional review but what will survive is a hazing program to pressure people into more desirable behaviors or persuade them to go somewhere else.

[Josh]

Dealing with human behavior is complex and simplistic solutions are not easily found. The ability of governments to criminalize behavior typically outpaces their ability to enforce. Often the approach is to make the unwanted behavior more difficult or uncomfortable than other options.

It's very easy to enforce people not camping on the sidewalk. The only reason it isn't enforced is because a federal district court prevents them from doing so.

NYC has a subsidized housing program for low or no income people but they guard it by making the intake system very long and undesirable to encourage participants to choose other options. If it becomes too difficult or unavailable, people give up and go back to the street, if it's too easy, it is quickly abused. So there is a sort of dance between the unhoused and law enforcement and policy makers.

NYC is one of the most expensive places in the world to live. Is there a reason that people with no income should expect to be able to live there for free?

Smaller towns or cities often do not have the will or resources to create such a system so it is easier to simply drive that population away and hope they take their problems with them.

In smaller towns and cities, people are expected to get jobs, work, and then use that money to pay rent or buy a house. Where I live, someone can afford rent or a mortgage on minimum wage income.

I doubt a full ban on the homeless could survive constitutional review but what will survive is a hazing program to pressure people into more desirable behaviors or persuade them to go somewhere else.

There is plenty of shelter space. There isn't shelter space for people who want to shoot up and deal drugs, start fights, carry weapons, and generally engage in antisocial behaviour.

Do you think there should be?