Where can you go if existing on public property is illegal?

Sleep is a pretty essential human function, right? You can die without it. Well in one city on Oregon that has more homeless people than beds, sleeping in public is illegal.

They obviously don’t own any property, so public property is the only space they are allowed to exist. If you’re not allowed to perform a function necessary for survival in any location… are you allowed to exist?

Also, since these are “civil” laws… (civil - [adjective]: courteous and polite) the punishments are fines, and not jail time. Just in case they thought they might be able to get a little help.

And the only thing more shocking than the decision, is the Supreme Court Justice who doesn’t understand what his job is.

“Why would you think that these nine people are the best people to judge and weigh those policy judgments?”

Real quote from the dystopia - “Why would you think that these nine [justices] are the best people to judge?”

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

4meAndyou · F

In the olden days, "homeless", or, as they used to be known..."bums" or "indigents" hid while they were sleeping. Their aim, in staying hidden, was to stay out of jail. In the distant past, no "homeless" were allowed to sleep in public places because they might urinate, defecate, beg, or lie there on the street or in the gutter with their liquor bottles in a drunken stupor, offending the eyesight of all who passed.

All that being said, I do believe one would have to be blind not to understand that there are thousands and thousands more homeless people today than there EVER were in the distant past.
If homeless people were fleas on a dog, you could very well say that the dog is now so completely infested that his life and health are in danger from them.

As far as the SUPREME court is concerned, these people were selected by Congress through an exhaustive examination of their qualifications. In other words, these judges are the BEST in the United States. They are SUPREMELY qualified to examine the law and the Constitution and SUPREMELY qualified to judge.

And in fact, if you are familiar with their ruling, they only said that CITIES may now, themselves, decide whether or not to allow the homeless to sleep on their streets. They may, in fact, decide to allow it. The ruling simply gives some cities the right NOT to allow it. Once again, giving the choice back to the people.

Aleve · 22-25, F

@4meAndyou The Supreme Court did not simply rule that cities are allowed to choose. They were already allowed to choose and that doesn’t need a court to rule on. But before, if you were going to choose to criminalize sleeping, you would be legally required to provide a solution, such as shelters, (or in the case of public defecation being illegal - public bathrooms are required) so that there is not a group of people who are breaking a law simply by existing the only way they’re able in that moment.

The ruling means that cities can now criminalize homelessness without needing to provide any solution to address the problem.

4meAndyou · F

@Aleve Untrue...in that the word criminalization is too extreme. Parking ticket is more accurate in describing fines that might be levied...and parking tickets are not serious.

Aleve · 22-25, F

@4meAndyou Semantics. It would also be more accurate to refer to them as “human beings” instead of “fleas on a dog”.

4meAndyou · F

@Aleve What...are you one giant exposed nerve? And you really should watch your OWN semantics.

Aleve · 22-25, F

@4meAndyou Consider them watched - the question is whether or not it should be allowed to ban something - or “put it on the level of a parking ticket” without providing an alternative for people who may unfortunately be stuck in a situation where they need to do that thing to survive. Ban shitting in public? Ok, make a couple public bathrooms / portapotties.

Want to ban sleeping in public? Got to make sure nobody needs to. Don’t want to shelter them or give them aid? Then don’t ban it. Even restricting it to certain non-residential areas is ok compared to banning it entirely.

In a country where it’s not possible or not feasible for everybody to own property, you can’t ban people from existing in a public space, without providing a reasonable alternative. Where are they supposed to go?