• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court lets stand ruling that protects homeless people who sleep on sidewalk

jonny5

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The outcome was a significant victory for homeless activists and a setback for city officials in California and other Western states who argued the ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals undercut their authority to regulate encampments on the sidewalks.
Click to expand...

Supreme Court refuses to hear a case about where homeless can sleep - Los Angeles Times

I dont know which is right. Im not sure the federal govt is right to prevent a city or states from keeping people from living on public property mean for other purposes. It certainly impacts other peoples rights to use those public spaces for more mainstream purposes like walking, driving, recreation and business, the purpose for such places. Certainly you can punish people for loitering. Isnt this loitering?

But, whats the alternative? Force the public to give people free houses? How about moving them out of the city to public land? How about privatizing spaces so that there is no public allowance? Like a Mall or campus which allows people to shop, recreate, live, but which is private so as to give them authority to remove people who do not live there.

Obviously those with mental issues need treatment. Those with substance abuse issues should probably be offered help. Those that dont want help, dont want to work, dont want to get along with their neighbors, need to be moved out.
 
America has dismantled its safety net and now we are dealing with the results. I'm torn on this issue. People need a place to sleep but a public sidewalk shouldn't be that place. I feel that, until this issue affects the rich more than it does now, nothing will change. America is going to turn in to a third world **** hole.
 
Sweet dreams homeless people the Supreme Court has you back. Just try to poop on the grassy areas instead or the sidewalks if you don't mind.
 
jonny5 said:
Supreme Court refuses to hear a case about where homeless can sleep - Los Angeles Times

I dont know which is right. Im not sure the federal govt is right to prevent a city or states from keeping people from living on public property mean for other purposes. It certainly impacts other peoples rights to use those public spaces for more mainstream purposes like walking, driving, recreation and business, the purpose for such places. Certainly you can punish people for loitering. Isnt this loitering?

But, whats the alternative? Force the public to give people free houses? How about moving them out of the city to public land? How about privatizing spaces so that there is no public allowance? Like a Mall or campus which allows people to shop, recreate, live, but which is private so as to give them authority to remove people who do not live there.

Obviously those with mental issues need treatment. Those with substance abuse issues should probably be offered help. Those that dont want help, dont want to work, dont want to get along with their neighbors, need to be moved out.
Click to expand...

Why are they are less entitled than you to public space?
 
Why don't kind, compassionate, liberals provide housing for the homeless so that they don't have to sleep on the sidewalk in the first place?

Seems like all liberals are good at is virtue signalling about the issue instead of actually doing anything about it.
 
aociswundumho said:
Why don't kind, compassionate, liberals provide housing for the homeless so that they don't have to sleep on the sidewalk in the first place?

Seems like all liberals are good at is virtue signalling about the issue instead of actually doing anything about it.
Click to expand...
More unintelligent, unoriginal deflection that avoid the issue. Becuase as usual, conservatives have nothing and no ability to actually think, just parrot dumb slogans like above

Deplorables indeeed
 
aociswundumho said:
Why don't kind, compassionate, liberals provide housing for the homeless so that they don't have to sleep on the sidewalk in the first place?

Seems like all liberals are good at is virtue signalling about the issue instead of actually doing anything about it.
Click to expand...

Not sure, why don't kind, compassionate conservatives stop passing laws that punish poor people?
 
Sampson Simpson said:
More unintelligent, unoriginal deflection that avoid the issue. Becuase as usual, conservatives have nothing and no ability to actually think, just parrot dumb slogans like above

Deplorables indeeed
Click to expand...

You have cities full of wealthy white liberals combined with people who need housing. What exactly is the problem? I thought helping the needy was a core leftist value.
 
D_NATURED said:
America has dismantled its safety net and now we are dealing with the results. I'm torn on this issue. People need a place to sleep but a public sidewalk shouldn't be that place. I feel that, until this issue affects the rich more than it does now, nothing will change. America is going to turn in to a third world **** hole.
Click to expand...

We spend almost every federal tax dollar on the safety net. How exactly has it been dismantled?
 
mrjurrs said:
Not sure, why don't kind, compassionate conservatives stop passing laws that punish poor people?
Click to expand...

These are leftist cities that are trying to kick the poor off the sidewalks:

the article said:
Los Angeles officials expressed disappointment with the court’s decision not to hear the case, saying that the lower court ruling had left the law unclear about what local officials could do.
Click to expand...
 
aociswundumho said:
Why don't kind, compassionate, liberals provide housing for the homeless so that they don't have to sleep on the sidewalk in the first place?

Seems like all liberals are good at is virtue signalling about the issue instead of actually doing anything about it.
Click to expand...

They sort of are, theyre just really bad at it and dont really care that its only going to encourage more.
 
jonny5 said:
Supreme Court refuses to hear a case about where homeless can sleep - Los Angeles Times

I dont know which is right. Im not sure the federal govt is right to prevent a city or states from keeping people from living on public property mean for other purposes. It certainly impacts other peoples rights to use those public spaces for more mainstream purposes like walking, driving, recreation and business, the purpose for such places. Certainly you can punish people for loitering. Isnt this loitering?

But, whats the alternative? Force the public to give people free houses? How about moving them out of the city to public land? How about privatizing spaces so that there is no public allowance? Like a Mall or campus which allows people to shop, recreate, live, but which is private so as to give them authority to remove people who do not live there.

Obviously those with mental issues need treatment. Those with substance abuse issues should probably be offered help. Those that dont want help, dont want to work, dont want to get along with their neighbors, need to be moved out.
Click to expand...



Yeah, that’s it. Privatize all public egress. Go with Social Darwinism and Economic Eugenics. F those with the least. Social consciousness and the idea that society takes care of its own is counterproductive. Nice job of slipping in White Nationalist Neo-Nazism into the OP. “Move’m out”. That’s the ticket.
 
mrjurrs said:
Not sure, why don't kind, compassionate conservatives stop passing laws that punish poor people?
Click to expand...

Because then those poor people would harm others. Compassionate conservatives prefer to help people diretcly who can and want to be helped. And then enforce a rule of law which protects everyone else.
 
bluesmoke said:
Yeah, that’s it. Privatize all public egress. Go with Social Darwinism and Economic Eugenics. F those with the least. Social consciousness and the idea that society takes care of its own is counterproductive. Nice job of slipping in White Nationalist Neo-Nazism into the OP. “Move’m out”. That’s the ticket.
Click to expand...

Damn. Godwin's law already and its only post 14!
 
jonny5 said:
Supreme Court refuses to hear a case about where homeless can sleep - Los Angeles Times

I dont know which is right. Im not sure the federal govt is right to prevent a city or states from keeping people from living on public property mean for other purposes. It certainly impacts other peoples rights to use those public spaces for more mainstream purposes like walking, driving, recreation and business, the purpose for such places. Certainly you can punish people for loitering. Isnt this loitering?

But, whats the alternative? Force the public to give people free houses? How about moving them out of the city to public land? How about privatizing spaces so that there is no public allowance? Like a Mall or campus which allows people to shop, recreate, live, but which is private so as to give them authority to remove people who do not live there.

Obviously those with mental issues need treatment. Those with substance abuse issues should probably be offered help. Those that dont want help, dont want to work, dont want to get along with their neighbors, need to be moved out.
Click to expand...

The simplest solution to this problem is to offer designated areas for the homeless to encamp, with basic services like water and sanitation. If you want them off the street, you have to offer them something better. Shelters serve some of this need, but many of them require residents to meet certain behavioral requirements, such as sobriety, to live there. This sounds fine in the surface, but ultimately it ends up blocking off help to those who need it the most. Which is why I believe an encampment area is a preferable, albeit temporary solution.
 
mrjurrs said:
Cities don't have a political viewpoint, people do.
Click to expand...

Nice try. LA has been run by liberal Democrats for decades. We hear the constant rhetoric from the left regarding how much they care for poor people, yet here they are trying to kick poor people off the sidewalks instead of providing homes for them.
 
lemmiwinx said:
Sweet dreams homeless people the Supreme Court has you back. Just try to poop on the grassy areas instead or the sidewalks if you don't mind.
Click to expand...

aociswundumho said:
Why don't kind, compassionate, liberals provide housing for the homeless so that they don't have to sleep on the sidewalk in the first place?

Seems like all liberals are good at is virtue signalling about the issue instead of actually doing anything about it.
Click to expand...
Two posts that represent the conservative mind -- cruel and uncompassionate. No wonder they vote the way that they do.
 
bluesmoke said:
Yeah, that’s it. Privatize all public egress. Go with Social Darwinism and Economic Eugenics. F those with the least. Social consciousness and the idea that society takes care of its own is counterproductive.
Click to expand...

So why aren't wealthy liberal cities providing them with homes?
 
MTAtech said:
Two posts that represent the conservative mind -- cruel and uncompassionate. No wonder they vote the way that they do.
Click to expand...

Is the city of LA part of the "conservative mind"?

Los Angeles officials expressed disappointment with the court’s decision not to hear the case, saying that the lower court ruling had left the law unclear about what local officials could do.
Click to expand...

Seems to me it's the wealthy liberal city officials who are "cruel and uncompassionate."
 
MTAtech said:
Two posts that represent the conservative mind -- cruel and uncompassionate. No wonder they vote the way that they do.
Click to expand...

Take that over to the partisan section. Trying to have an actual debate here.
 
aociswundumho said:
Nice try. LA has been run by liberal Democrats for decades. We hear the constant rhetoric from the left regarding how much they care for poor people, yet here they are trying to kick poor people off the sidewalks instead of providing homes for them.
Click to expand...

LA spends $450 million for homeless services each year.
 
MTAtech said:
Two posts that represent the conservative mind -- cruel and uncompassionate. No wonder they vote the way that they do.
Click to expand...

It's cruel and uncompassionate until they start camping and pooping on your front lawn. I'm guessing you're in a safe zone unaffected.
 
MTAtech said:
LA spends $450 million for homeless services each year.
Click to expand...

Well that's obviously not even close to enough. What's more important, keeping your money in your pocket or providing housing for the poor?

If white liberals were actually compassionate, they would increase local taxes to whatever level is necessary to house these people instead of trying to kick them off the sidewalk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom