Front Page  »  

Supreme Court to hear case on homeless encampment sweep bans

January 13, 2024

Homeless encampment on Madonna Road

By KAREN VELIE

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to look at whether local governments can enforce homeless encampments bans or if the bans amount to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.

A day earlier, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ban on homeless encampment sweeps which prohibits San Francisco from clearing camps without first offering the residents alternative shelter. Gov. Gavin Newsom responded by asking the Supreme Court to help him deal with a proliferation of homeless encampment on city streets.

The justices agreed on Friday to look at an appeal from Grants Pass, Oregon, of a federal court ruling stopping the city from enforcing a ban on public camping.

Homeless advocates argue that local governments need to focus on housing and not criminalizing homelessness.

However the Supreme Court rules, it is likely to have a significant impact on cities such as San Francisco and San Luis Obispo.

In Sept. 2022, a group of homeless individuals sued San Luis Obispo in federal court, asking that the city’s homeless population be granted the right to sleep in tents and vehicles in public places without facing destruction of their property, harassment, fines and criminal charges. The SLO City Council had passed multiple ordinances barring overnight access to parks and public spaces.

After losing a motion to dismiss the case, SLO settled with the homeless litigants, according to California Rural Legal Assistance.

Sign up for breaking news, alerts and updates with Cal Coast News Top Stories.

 


Loading...
Subjects:     
Related:


6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It’s time to go “Sheriff Arpaio” on the drug-addicted homeless. Desert-located tent treatment centers, clean them up, get them off drugs. Release them when dry, if they return to homelessness, repeat as necessary. Effective, relatively inexpensive, and most of all, needed. Please don’t bother with the Japanese internment argument, there is no comparison to that racial injustice.


5

It’s the same old thing… first we must make the homeless criminals, then we’ll get around to considering building transitional housing.


The housing is never built, because ngo’s and government agencies either understaff, underfund, or under-plan. What happens?


Law enforcement end up having to house the gross offenders at the jail in the short term, and periodically clear encampments, making sure the problem is always moving to a new neighborhood of pissed-off citizens. Then law enforcement howls that they need more money and aren’t trained enough to deal with the problem. So, we increase police funding, and they spend that money on equipment, overtime, fancy training field trips, maybe even a fancy new police station.


You know what would be exponentially cheaper? Give these people voluntary transitional housing, three square meals a day, access to a detox program, and a WPA-style work program.


But no, we have to continue do it the most expensive way with the least return on investment. **slow clapping**


-2

So Newsom is trying to fix a problem that he caused in the first place?


30

Someone challenge this ruling… its wrong headed and dangerous to the people and the environment…


16

“The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to look at whether local governments…”


They haven’t ruled yet. You can’t challenge their ruling except by Constitutional amendment. Civics 101.. and yet 15 people liked your comment, which is kind of concerning.


-2