The Supreme Court decision that could help us take back our cities

[Chris]

The Supreme Court decision that could help us take back our cities

Surging violence. Streets littered with human waste. Law and order giving way to death and destruction. The nationwide homelessness crisis has made this disturbing scene all too familiar, particularly in once-beautiful Western cities – all while progressive leaders sit back and watch.

...The Zone was created by city bureaucrats, who chose not to enforce laws against public camping and loitering. Their excuse has been that a pair of decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ties their hands – and the hands of city leaders throughout the Western states under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction – when it comes to the homelessness problem.

Those rulings – one called Martin v. Boise and the other Johnson v. Grants Pass – say that the Constitution’s "cruel and unusual punishment" clause forbids the government from arresting people for sleeping on the streets if they do so "involuntarily."

...But one Arizona judge has had enough. In a ruling with major national ramifications, Maricopa County Judge Scott Blaney issued an order last week commanding city officials to clean up one of the nation’s largest homeless encampments: the vast swath of downtown Phoenix that locals call "The Zone."

And now, the U.S. Supreme Court has a chance to address the underlying cause of the crisis that has struck not just in Arizona but nationwide.

...The good news is that the U.S. Supreme Court will soon consider whether to review those Ninth Circuit decisions – and a coalition of business owners, police, city officials and taxpayer advocates have joined forces to urge the justices to do so. ...

What I want to focus on is the difference in the way libs and cons view rights, re the Constitution’s 8th amendment "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.

The liberal view of that clause as pertains to the homeless is that "the decisions define "involuntary" to mean that any time there aren’t enough beds available in city-run homeless shelters, anyone sleeping on the streets is doing so 'involuntarily.'" IOW, the liberal view is that society via the State must provide the right.

The conservative view looks at rights as individual responsibilities in pursuit of happiness: "That’s nonsense. A person acts "involuntarily" if he can’t help it – not if the government fails to give him a handout. By the Ninth Circuit’s logic, someone who drives home drunk from a bar did so "involuntarily" because the government didn’t hire him a cab."

[DGUtley]

This could be huge. What case have they taken up?

[Chris]

This could be huge. What case have they taken up?

They might review Martin v. Boise and Johnson v. Grants Pass.

[FindersKeepers]

Well, it doesn't appear that SCOTUS has agreed to hear it yet.

On the one hand, everyone wants clean city centers without worrying about drugs and stepping in human feces.

But, on the other hand, from what I understand, there have been legal challenges to cities that have enacted measures to run the homeless out of public areas if those people had no other place to go.

It comes down to whether we are or are not our brother's keeper.

Indeed, something should be done, but it's probably going to end up costing the taxpayers to do it.

In my community, homelessness is not a thing. We do occasionally get a homeless person, but the churches descend upon them, and suddenly, they have a safe place to sleep and live and plenty of food in their tummies. But, that's a rural community for you.

I wouldn't live in a big city to save my life.

[RMNIXON]

Long overdue in my opinion.

To begin with "involuntary" is questionable with so many who choose a life of homelessness and refuse help when offered. If you want to live your life taking drugs on the street why should you be granted special rights denied to others? Not to mention the clear link between crime and these tolerated encampments.

[RMNIXON]

It comes down to whether we are or are not our brother's keeper.

Indeed, something should be done, but it's probably going to end up costing the taxpayers to do it.

In my community, homelessness is not a thing. We do occasionally get a homeless person, but the churches descend upon them, and suddenly, they have a safe place to sleep and live and plenty of food in their tummies. But, that's a rural community for you.

I wouldn't live in a big city to save my life.

That is called Charity rather than a right, and most often it requires those being helped to also help themselves. Compare that to Blue Cities who throw Millions into homeless services and the problem keeps getting worse. They have made it a Social Services Industry in CA!

[FindersKeepers]

That is called Charity rather than a right, and most often it requires those being helped to also help themselves. Compare that to Blue Cities who throw Millions into homeless services and the problem keeps getting worse. They have made it a Social Services Industry in CA!

There's got to be a solution that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

These are human beings, but no one wants their cities turned into toilets.

Yes, in my community, charity takes care of it, but you're right, it's a much bigger problem in cities.

California passed a zoning rule a few years back that allows homeowners to put up small auxiliary building in their yards--the rule supersedes other zoning laws, but very few are taking advantage of it. I probably wouldn't either.

[Dr. Who]

The Supreme Court decision that could help us take back our cities

Surging violence. Streets littered with human waste. Law and order giving way to death and destruction. The nationwide homelessness crisis has made this disturbing scene all too familiar, particularly in once-beautiful Western cities – all while progressive leaders sit back and watch.

...The Zone was created by city bureaucrats, who chose not to enforce laws against public camping and loitering. Their excuse has been that a pair of decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ties their hands – and the hands of city leaders throughout the Western states under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction – when it comes to the homelessness problem.

Those rulings – one called Martin v. Boise and the other Johnson v. Grants Pass – say that the Constitution’s "cruel and unusual punishment" clause forbids the government from arresting people for sleeping on the streets if they do so "involuntarily."

...But one Arizona judge has had enough. In a ruling with major national ramifications, Maricopa County Judge Scott Blaney issued an order last week commanding city officials to clean up one of the nation’s largest homeless encampments: the vast swath of downtown Phoenix that locals call "The Zone."

And now, the U.S. Supreme Court has a chance to address the underlying cause of the crisis that has struck not just in Arizona but nationwide.

...The good news is that the U.S. Supreme Court will soon consider whether to review those Ninth Circuit decisions – and a coalition of business owners, police, city officials and taxpayer advocates have joined forces to urge the justices to do so. ...

What I want to focus on is the difference in the way libs and cons view rights, re the Constitution’s 8th amendment "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.

The liberal view of that clause as pertains to the homeless is that "the decisions define "involuntary" to mean that any time there aren’t enough beds available in city-run homeless shelters, anyone sleeping on the streets is doing so 'involuntarily.'" IOW, the liberal view is that society via the State must provide the right.

The conservative view looks at rights as individual responsibilities in pursuit of happiness: "That’s nonsense. A person acts "involuntarily" if he can’t help it – not if the government fails to give him a handout. By the Ninth Circuit’s logic, someone who drives home drunk from a bar did so "involuntarily" because the government didn’t hire him a cab."

I'm pretty sure most liberals realize that many homeless choose to sleep on the street rather than use, often dangerous, shelters. Most liberals also recognize that many of the homeless are mentally ill, so don't want to be forced into a crowded shelter with strangers - something that would very likely trigger high anxiety and even delusional behavior for those suffering from schizophrenia and similar disorders.

You can't pass a law that deals appropriately with all of the homeless unless you are willing to provide somewhere safe for them to go, either for the night or on a long-term basis. These are people, not pigeons.

[Chris]

Leaving the homeless out in squalid conditions on the streets and in tent cities among drug addicts and drugs and criminals and crime is not a solution.