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.
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.