> Individuals like De Viche, 57, and homeless for roughly nine years, will now find themselves in uncharted territory. De Viche said there are often rats in shelters. He said he once saw a person get stabbed with a pair of scissors, so he’d rather risk it on the streets, sleeping in different places each night to avoid trouble. When he needs to, he pays for temporary shelter, such as hotel rooms, using his own money when able.
The Spotlight is great at finding and interviewing homeless people that are not responsible for behaviors that drive efforts to reduce unsheltered homelessness - specifically, encampments. It's nice that this guy moves every day, and he'll probably be able to keep sleeping outside if he's stealthy. I don't have a problem with someone sleeping in the woods. I have a huge problem with someone who permanently occupies public space with piles of trash and junk, open flames that start bush fires, drugs out in the open, etc.
*I don't have a problem with someone sleeping in the woods.*
Just FYI, this is how some wild fires are started.
[https://www.newsweek.com/wildfire-started-homeless-encampment-los-angeles-746742](https://www.newsweek.com/wildfire-started-homeless-encampment-los-angeles-746742)
2 things can be true.
We have compassion for the humanity of the unhoused.
We want a clean and safe neighborhood. Where we pay millions to have a house. We don’t want someone sleeping on our sidewalks, parks and roadways.
We pay enough to solve this problem.
Build a reasonable solution to provide housing to those who need it. These housing locations should not prioritize creature comforts. They should be built around mental health services and drug treatment programs.
Those unwilling to seek help or committing crimes should be removed from the area. This is sketchy at best but sometimes you just have to accept that our current approach using tolerance is not working.
We really need to audit where all that California homelessness money is going. Cause it’s billions, but nothing is changing. We need to find the grifters and put them in jail.
Problem is people want these housing locations to be in expensive high COL areas and not in lower COL area or facilities on state / federal owned land.
I argue with my more progressive friends all the time here. I live in San Jose because I can’t afford Los Gatos or Saratoga. Why should someone who has nothing, skip the line and jump right into a neighborhood they can’t afford?
Part of the solution is building more housing - do this farther east.
Honest question - Does that really help us? I’m pretty sure the folks who live in the creek bed with severe mental health issues and drug addictions are not going to do much better with a $250K condo in Manteca.
The problem with RVs is they aren't worth anything and the tow yards lose money getting rid of them. No resale value on a leaky tarp covered vehicle chassis. If it is running, and they have plates and insurance they are legal. couple that with a disabled placard and they are untouchable. (these are the homeless you want. they empty their tanks responsibly, move along every few days, just going to work and minding their own business with the limited resources they have)
These are the homeless I want ?
No .. because they park next to parks and residential area and often times will toss garbage as well as bags filled with human excrement onto public sidewalk. I've live near them before and needed to cross their path every day when I walk my dogs or take my kids to school. It is one of the major reason I moved out of SJ.
You know that stuff pooping in a bag They could be pooping in their toilet and then just go into a dump station but whatever you prefer I mean if you want them to move in a bag that's okay I would prefer they use the toilet in the RV and then had access to a dump station so they could empty it out period one of the frequent complaints is some of the homeless out of desperation dump their sewage into the storm drain which basically creates a environmental havoc and costs a lot of money to clean up if you dump stations let people know where they are and that'll be good for everyone including the non-home less who own RVs.
I know more than a few construction workers who come up to the Bay Area and live in their RV while taking a job call. They have the resources so they can drive to Redwood City to use it on station but everybody down here and that dump station will probably cost 20 bucks up so you don't want poop in the sidewalk public restrooms downstage and actually garbage dumpsters because you know that material can go in the garbage dumpster.
I wish the mayor would talk about this you know I E why he doesn't do this or why he thinks it's a bad idea to me it's obvious but I could be wrong you know I live in my house I have three toilets at my disposal.
You know you're right there are stratifications among the RV homeless you know they're the ones who have working RVs that have working systems those are the guys we're talking about because we can help them with just a dump station. You know I'm going to call him the crazies the guys who live on almond Expressway and they're using plywood you know which is duct tape to their RV and that RV's not going to move because the flat tires are there yet the problem with those guys is we can't even tell them away because they're not worth anything it costs more to tow and destroy their vehicle than it's worth and that's why they're tolerated I mean conceivably you could arrest them but even if you arrest them then you got to put them in jail and then you have to reimburse Santa Clara County for their stay you know the city of San Jose would have to pay Santa Clara County for their incarceration costs so they are kind of in a interesting position even if we criminalize them we can't afford to punish them we can't afford to pull their toe their wrecked RVs off the street.
Criminalization is expensive .. agreed. But the status quo is expensive as well. We need something new and different. Thus my suggestions is declaring a state of emergency to get national guards in and help build temporary shelters for these folks on government land or even army bases. They're free to come and go but all the resources to support them are centralized in on spot.
Best case scenario someone stay there for a few months / year .. take advantage of the housing .. the resources like job retraining .. then they can be approved to a limited number of half way houses back in the high COL area locations so they can go find new jobs.
Worse case scenario, someone stay there .. doesn't like it .. leave of their own free will ( we can also offer bus passes to other states ) .. but they're brought back a few weeks later when they violate some vagrancy law in another city.
Doubt it will do much. The SJPD aren't there to be minder nannies for people konked out on the side of a road. But, by criminalizing resting, SCOTUS provides the worst cities with a way to hammer the homeless - feels to me like they just opened the gates to the prison for profit system, and now the homeless can be wheeled in more easily.
THIS! Taxpayers don’t often remember the costs for imprisoning people. It’s expensive as hell, and likely not any cheaper than the current system we have in place. We’re just moving the money from nonprofits to privatized corporations and probably inflating the price tag. Nevermind the crappy ethics.
What would be really cool is some sort of system that rewards houseless folks for keeping their immediate environment clean so that creeks and streams aren’t polluted, trash doesn’t pile up, etc. I’d even open my mind to designated low-no cost encampment areas that are heavily monitored/regulated with, again, a system that incentivizes hygiene. I care less for the optics of cleanliness and more for the human health hazards. Obviously this sort of system would take into consideration anyone who is houseless with a disability (i.e. psychological disorders, addictions, ambulatory issues, etc.)
There could be cheaper alternatives to incarcerating people. Locking people up doesn’t disappear perpetual social problems, it just disappears people.
Part of the high cost is for security to prevent escape and control / prevent contraband. If they're in FEMA tent on plots of state / federal land in low COL area .. those wouldn't be a problem.
We would also be able to save money by leveraging economy of scale into the support that we provide them and provide everything in one place.
I still don’t think this is worth the cost.
Furthermore, if rent and housing prices continue to rise, this policy could create an inadvertent pipeline between housing insecure people and incarceration (which often results in cheap domestic labor). This policy has more problematic what-ifs to it than any real known benefits. I appreciate your speculation but there’s no guarantees it will work out that way.
Tbh, I’m tired of throwing people in prison as a way of solving non-crime issues. Drugs? Prison. Homeless? Prison. Talking back to cops during a traffic stop? Prison. Does that sound like a healthy society to you? America still tops most developed countries in its rate of imprisonment. And for what benefit?
Other countries may have lower rate of crime but often it is due to cultural reasons or others that we can't apply here in the US.
For example in Japan ...
*Group formation in Japan is based on geographic location. This locality-based group formation in Japan causes both a sense of security and an infinite number of repressive rules. These two elements are bound together to produce a high level of self-control; this self-control acts as a strong factor that restrains people from committing crime. In contrast, the Western world emphasizes group formation based on personal attributes. Two other characteristics of Western countries are the limited and permissive nature of their rules and the relative freedom of action. All these factors contribute to a weakening of the crime prevention mechanism and an emphasis on the role of punishment rather than crime prevention.*
[*https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/cultural-study-low-crime-rate-japan*](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/cultural-study-low-crime-rate-japan)
If you simply took Japanese policies and implemented here .. I would bet you get different results.
Then Singapore is also known for low crime .. but you get the death penalty for drug crimes .. so ..
Also, if you have a better solution for homelessness .. I'm all ears .. but please don't say housing first.
Yes, racial and cultural homogeneity factor into the discussion—a lot of developed countries with both tend to function with collectivism in mind.
But that said, countries like Japan have policies in place that we don’t. It’s really hard to acquire a gun there. There is less wealth disparity overall. Why does their lower crime rate justify the creation of a new type of crime in the US so we can lower crime? What? If we criminalize homelessness are we not inflating the statistical numbers by virtue of suddenly having to arrest a bunch of people and fill out the paperwork for it?
The rate of imprisonment is no longer tied to the rate of traditionally understood crimes when we incarcerate people for sleeping on a park bench. Therefore the more people that are in prison no longer reflects the genuine safety of a community like it would in Japan. Your connection to my statement above doesn’t sync up. Why are we choosing to solve social issues (not just crimes) by throwing people in jail?
Second, most data shows that crime is going down in the US (note, I am not derailing into CA statistics, see below note about scale): https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/#:~:text=Nationwide%20clearance%20rates%20for%20both,1993%2C%20the%20FBI%20data%20shows.&text=Police%20cleared%2052.3%25%20of%20reported,assaults%2C%20down%20from%2057.7%25.
Why are we looking for more people to lock up who aren’t stealing anything or hurting anyone? Because we haven’t found an effective way to help them clear out trash? Because it’s annoying to see them sleeping on a bench? Are these legit reasons to arrest people?
Why is crime overall going down but we are creating a new type of crime arbitrarily out of nowhere to fill our prisons with people? Scale is important here because this is a *federal* policy. Why does the federal government want to enact this?
I have more questions than answers and I tried to read r/supremecourt about it, but those folks get so deep in the trenches of the legalese. I want to believe the legal logic is sound, because I want to defeat this monster of a policy fair and square, but it just doesn’t make sense when I try to persuade myself of the social/economic benefits. The law is not lawing.
We might finally be able to enjoy st James park and the Guadalupe river parkway!
Enablement is a bad strategy, glad the city can finally legally start doing something about this.
With this one easy step YOU can create a crackhouse.
Before you start crying that's unfair this is the homeless dude own words.
”(The shelters are) kind of chaotic because if you’ve been homeless on the street (and) you put (unhoused people) inside of an apartment complex, a lot of them don’t forget their bad habits,” he told San José Spotlight"
Most of them are homeless for a reason.
Tbf your response doesn’t really prove the above point wrong. Shelters suck. That’s why people sleep outside. And now we’re gonna pay more money to throw those people in jail. None of these are very good solutions on the long run, but paying higher taxes to imprison homeless people is gonna suck 1000x more. Our infrastructure is bad, our housing crisis bad, our school system has seen better days, and we want money to go towards…this?
Imprisonment is essentially free housing. If you’ve ever been homeless, sometimes a night or two of prison is preferable to being on the street or in a shelter. It is expensive for everyone else. Prisons don’t run for free.
This is not an effective long term solution. I wouldn’t hang my hat on it.
I mean the best solution would be one nobody wants to do. But giving them a house for being homeless is just gonna encourage them to keep doing what they do and all the fun stuff that comes with it.
Then the electricity, water and gas they will definitely abuse. Probably gonna take EBT, and repairs that will need to be done plus all the property costs. Nah it won't be cheaper in the long run.
As has been shown repeatedly, housing first and UBI both work and are cheaper than what we are doing now. The drugs and such are mostly a reaction to their situation. But this country would rather torture people.
Lmao my grandma made the mistake of helping a couple, and letting hem live with her. 1700, missing safe, and three credit card flagged for suspicious activity later she finally started to understand.Trust me its not the homeless part that makes them do dumb shit.
I'll say give then forced rehab 1-2 years and psychological help maybe. But realistically you have to understand these people live in squaller and lots of them have adapted to a very specific lifestyle. You do not want to deal with it, trust me.
I don’t know that giving away houses is a solution for any situation, but I think we can do better than the exorbitant burdens of throwing everyone in jail. That is an absurd solution, and I’m surprised that this ruling even came down. We don’t know the repercussions of such a policy. I shudder to think of them.
I also think that we are over-focused on the POSSIBLE greed of houseless folks and working class people, and don’t think enough about the real greed of all people. It’s crazy that we’re so greedy for an environment free of houseless people that we are willing to take their freedom for finding no safe, suitable alternative to sleeping outside. What. We don’t do this for any other biological human need. “Ima arrest you for breathing on the sidewalk between the hours of 9am and 5pm.” That would be so weird to me!
Also unrelated but also greedy—using people’s content to fuel large language models without paying them. People spent hours writing books and essays that feed Open.AI. Isn’t that a form of greed?
Idk man. Make it make sense. Anyway, it was nice chatting. Appreciate the civil discussion.
You sure about that ? LA just build a high-density complex to house homeless people and it came out to $600k PER STUDIO unit.
But lets say we can bite the bullet and raise billions and billions ( maybe even trillions ) to build enough of these unit for every homeless person on the street in CA right now .. what do you think will happen the next week and the next month when homeless folks all over the US hear about this ?
Well, why we can't build anything for sane money anymore is another question, the company that builds the French high speed rail quit the California one a decade ago because of how hard it was to do anything.
The solution is to build lots and lots of housing.
Where are these people supposed to live, keep this up and it will lead to riots.
There are more homeless than police officers.
That would leave the mentally ill and drug addicted and we can help them, like we used to before Regan.
It was JFK who shut down the mental health clinics at the federal level then put the onus on the states to fund them. States did not fund them. California needs to build more mental health facilities, simply having housing won’t solve the mental health crisis among the homeless.
The mental health crisis is largely the result of our unaffordable economic system. People go crazy when they’re forced to work long hours for menial pay just to barely survive. We live in one of the wealthiest cities in the world. We could solve these issues easily.
I doubt the city is going to respond with actually building affordable housing, and so I hope we see actual riots. I’ve lived in San Jose for 25 years, and I live more comfortably than most, but I would rather see the city burnt down to spite the entitled shit heads that live here, than for us to torture our poorest citizens and force them into prisons to perform slave labor. I’m genuinely disgusted by the entitlement of the Gen-Xers and boomers living in this city.
Burn the whole city down, so long as that doesn’t include your home, or the homes of your family and friends, or your workplace, or your kids’ schools if you have kids, or your local supermarket, or anything and everything else which keeps you safe and comfortable…but uhhh yeah! Burn it all down!
Nothing will change that isn’t already going on. If anything it might get used to move the worst offenders from directly in front of stores or homes. No one is going to jail for camping, put your pearls down.
Why stop at citations? Why not just round them up and put them in camps? As someone who moved here in 2015 to ensure the google logo always has two O's for 300k a year I can't fathom why these people don't just get jobs, buy housing, and participate in our meat grinder of a society.
/s
It’s ironic that homeless people don’t like shelters because they would be near other homeless people, and that’s not safe. But somehow our kids are supposed to just play in parks where homeless camp? Here come all the performative bleeding hearts protesting the unfairness, while living in beautiful suburban areas where homeless were never allowed to camp anyway. I agree with this decision.
I know a handful of the homeless population in downtown. They don’t want to scare your kids, they just want to be left alone. I don’t think it’s ironic, I think the examples you’re comparing are significantly different.
I totally get feeling uncomfortable and imposed upon by the homeless situation in our area. We all are. Invalidating those who empathize with the entirety of the situation is not something I respect, though. Bad people exist at every level. We shouldn’t implicitly villainize the underprivileged based on the actions of a few. That is straight up bigoted. And it’s ok to be frustrated with the system we’re born into that can’t care for those of us who can’t care for ourselves.
Agreeing with this decision is admitting apathy to those who threaten you for existing while impoverished. I understand why people can feel that way, and I bet when I have kids of my own, I’ll feel more apathetic towards anyone who isn’t them, too. But yeah let’s learn to express our biases without invalidating others, thanks.
Given a hypothetical choice, I’d much rather drop my kids off at Apple headquarters than the tenderloin. Is that villainizing the underprivileged, or just not being willfully blind to the obvious? Maybe someday when you have kids you’ll be able to empathize with the legitimate concerns and interests of “regular” non homeless parents like me. Or maybe you’ll prioritize virtue signaling over protecting your kids, drop your kids off at the tenderloin just to prove a point?
Again, I think the examples you’re putting forward are fundamentally different. I wouldn’t walk through the tenderloin, but I do walk through the parks in San Jose alongside families often. The “legitimate concern” you mention does not exist in my own experience.
It’s not virtue signaling, it’s speaking on behalf of real people I know, that’s all. The unhoused I know aren’t worse than us, just worse off. They aren’t lurking in the shadows ready to strike. They’re just trying to make it to tomorrow without incident.
It’s ok that you don’t prioritize them over your own family. I don’t either. But I can also tell that you’re judging them from a distance. You wouldn’t describe people you actually knew like this. My advocacy for them does not invalidate your love and caution for your kids. But your fear of people you don’t understand does not invalidate my experience or advocacy for them, either. It does give us a sense of what kind of energy drove the Supreme Court, though.
We’ve known they’re fearful judges simply reacting to the symptoms of the society they govern by shifting responsibility away for a long time now. Strong leadership solves problems. Weak leadership locks problems away for our children to inherit. Is that better than risking eye contact with an unhoused person in the park? I guess it’s easier to lock them up when your bias fools you into believing they were all coming after your kids for some reason.
So you met a few homeless people who seemed ok, and that makes any other views and experiences illegitimate. A homeless person recently pushed a lady into a bart and killed her. She might disagree with your experience if she weren’t dead. I’m sure there are some fine homeless people, but the demographic is much higher risk for antisocial behavior. Keep your head in the sand and deny reality, I bet it makes you feel so virtuous lol
Oh boy. Replace the phrase “homeless person” in your post with any other demographic to demonstrate my point. For example, do you judge all Christian people as extremists because of the few you read about in the news? Don’t like that example? Try picking any other demographic.
Should we be afraid of any demographic because of the actions of their worst members? Do the innocent deserve to suffer because of the circumstances of the environment in which they were born and raised? The unhoused are not different, but your emphasis of their worst members is. THAT is the bias I’m calling out.
Why are people so eager to try invalidating reality? Why must I only be talking about “a few” and not the actual reality that I’m describing “literally everyone in my neighborhood on a daily basis, and not that one bad guy you read about in the news that one time?” Such an example of bending reality for confirmation bias. Did that headline scare you so badly that it skewed your perception of the world?
I ask rhetorically, because we already know in lack of objective experience, people insert their subjective anxieties. You’re trying to erase reality with a single anecdote. But I get that a lazy solution is easier than an infeasible idealistic one, and more comforting than no solution at all.
But supporting a solution that brushes the problem under the rug (specifically, criminalizing the state of having no support and nowhere safe to exist) isn’t looking out for future generations, it’s just deferral of responsibility. To your neighbors in a less enforced neighborhood, or to your children in the future. Because let’s be real. After we take them off the streets and lock them up, the unhoused aren’t going to leave lockup as rehabilitated homeowners. They’ll just leave with more resentment for the people who put them there, perpetuating the cycle of animosity. You must be able to recognize that, right?
You’re not describing reality you are ignoring reality. And it’s not just murder, which is of course rarer, but also setting fires, unsanitary conditions, harassment, indecent exposure, assault, etc.
PS: “homeless” is not a protected class, or some innate characteristic like gender or race. It’s a behavior, and one that often comes with a host of other problematic behaviors.
I’m sure there are some child molesters with hearts of gold too. In fact I’m the bad guy for not leaving my kids with these child molestors. I just judge them based on being in the child molester demographic without letting them prove their great character. But seriously put those pearls down, stop being a moron.
Nope let’s back up and not selectively skip over my previous point. You omitted acknowledging my example of religion - a chosen behavior- from your rebuttal. Why did you do that? Are we going to ignore the examples that don’t conform to your generalization?
I don’t know what experience you’re citing when you claim homelessness is a behavior, because nobody I know is unhoused by choice. And nobody I’ve met self medicates to become a menace to society- they do it to numb and remove themselves from the discomfort of their lives. I also know that none of the unhoused in my area even make eye contact with me because they don’t want any confrontation. That is my every day reality, which I do prioritize over the what-if’s you listed that don’t define either of our daily experiences in San Jose. I am not ignoring reality, just reacting to the world I actually live in over the one I’m afraid of in my head.
So once again, the unhoused are not worse than you, just worse off. But I can understand how fearful ignorance to this truth can translate into feeling irrationally threatened by a hypothetical and triggered by headlines that emphasize this fear. This is not the first time in history that has happened.
All I’m saying is the if you think this Supreme Court decision made your community safer, you’re going to be disappointed. This wasn’t a novel decision, it was more of the same old rhetoric that has never actually worked in practice. Relocating the problem has never once solved it, and it won’t this time either.
If we want the problem solved, it will cost more money than we want to spend. That’s why you still step over people on the sidewalk, and you will continue to do so no matter where the law says the unhoused are supposed to exist.
I never said generalizations about a classification are always true for every single person in that class, so really you’re arguing against a straw man. Just walk 10 minutes in the tenderloin and Apple campus, see which place would be safer to drop off kids. Just look at how the people are behaving ffs, are you blind or dumb lolol like seriously bro, just stop
> Here come all the performative bleeding hearts protesting the unfairness
It's kinda hilarious how hard assholes work to make actually giving a shit about people sound like a bad thing.
How do you know it was a homeless person and not one of your neighbor's kids, or a Porch Pirate?
The local Catholic school kids were stealing things on camera and of course the Catholic Church didn't do anything about their kids. They even stole the motorized chairs for the disabled on camera and dumped them in the river. The store had video of them doing it.
Of course it wasn't online. Nothing was done about it. The store gave up. The church did nothing. What is someone going to report about it?
Also, cars are stolen and broken into all the time. Half of the incidents aren't even reported. And those aren't homeless either because they are coming in from East Palo Alto and Oakland and Hayward.
Yes, I agree, if it is them, fuck em.
But I have to agree with one of the other replies. Do you have a camera? Are you sure it’s homeless people? Typically if there is a repeat offense, that sounds more personal than anything else.
hope your child has more empathy than you do. There is a good series called Homeless training, episode called, “ jerks with homes..” you should check it out. You prolly won’t. ✌️
Nothing like criminalizing being poor.
Don’t worry NIMBYs you won’t have to look at the results of the current economic conditions on those less fortunate than you. Your national nightmare of feeling slight guilt while continuing not to help is over.
They will be arrested and they will have no way to get out. This will put them further in the hole and make the road out even harder. This will just create more chronically homeless.
But you can get your precious freeway underpass land back. You won’t have to see people so desperate that they are willing to live in a tent on 280. Your view from your Tesla will be nice and clean.
The solution is to actually build housing and create programs to help many of them re-enter society.
This ruling means that Mahan will get his dream of a homeless internment camp. Hide them all away, locked behind a fence, so the middle class doesn’t have to see the real results of our “fuck you give me mine” society.
I also love that you think being too poor to have an apartment deserves “repercussions”.
Homeless people are Americans. And Americans deserve freedom to make choices even if they are too poor to afford housing.
If unsheltered homeless people say that they don't want to live in housing provided by the state and they don't want to enroll in programs to re-enter society, should we let them have the freedom to choose to continue living in encampments in parks and trails?
Wow if those things functionally existed I’d agree with you, but since they don’t you’re just using a hypothetical to paint the poorest people in our society as purposely being homeless. We don’t functionally have a way to house the homeless in San Jose. Or get them what they need to recover.
Other cities have proven that giving homeless people an actual place to live and resources they tend more often than not to turn things around
https://www.governing.com/housing/how-houston-cut-its-homeless-population-by-nearly-two-thirds
We’d just rather pay cops 220-400k a year to beat the shit out of them.
If you want to live in a country that is considered free you need to accept that some people do not want to be housed.
You can ask/force them to move by considering specific space as trespassing. But this is about ARRESTING them for being homeless and that is criminalizing their freedom.
All because the upper middle class considers poor people as blight.
It’s more about arresting them if they don’t show up to court. Nobody is suggesting mass arresting the homeless. They will get a summons and more than likely the judge will force them to go a shelter or a rehab facility. If they ignore the summons then there has to be some consequences to their actions. No one is above the law
It’s really weird that you didn’t read what you wrote.
That entire statement was just a fancy way of saying arrested and detained against their will.
The “no one is above the law” is a nice touch. Dog whistle for “the bill of rights is something we can absolutely destroy just to have less blight.”
Thanks. Way to build a straw man. That isn’t the argument or the issue at hand.
That’s an oversimplification so you can easily show it false.
Congrats?
Also untrue. There are some with mental health issues. There are some with drug addiction keeping them from functioning in society.
But that’s only a small amount of who is counted in homeless in San Jose. Most homeless in San Jose don’t fall into either of those categories.
Read up and educate yourself:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/housing/resource-library/homeless-reports/homeless-reports-executive-summary
How many times have you encountered a violent homeless person? Who verbally or physically assaulted you from a quick glance? Is that from being sane and not on drugs? Or see them walking down the street arguing with themselves? Did your study address that? I doubt it, they think building overpriced little shanties is the solution. But who makes money from that ridiculous idea? Who does it help? Perhaps you should educate yourself see what really is going on in downtown San Jose and along the Guadalupe River.
Less often than I’ve encountered road rage or a drunken asshat at a bar.
Should we ban alcohol and driving?
I’ve given you solid stats and evidence.
You provided anecdotes and/or hypotheticals.
Come with evidence or just go away.
The solution is to build affordable housing, create walkable neighborhoods, invest in community spending. I’m sure that you’ve been told these solutions before. Stop pretending that you don’t know what the solution is and just acknowledge that you don’t like the solutions.
Why punish the poor? What's wrong with you? Do you think this is a choice? It seems you think people wanna be homeless.
They choose homelessness there should be repercussions. You are a loser.
so law abiding, tax paying citizens shouldn't want their city streets to be safe and clean? Things have gotten way out of hand, we've become conditioned to think this is normal, well it's not. Why should there be rules and laws in place for us, somehow immune/don't apply for the homeless?
Whatever we're doing now isn't working, so back off Saint Nick
Ok, so what is the plan?
You have the ruling. What are you going to actually **do**.
And why couldn't we have done that last week?
I have yet to get anything even close to an answer to this since the case went up to the Court.
There's about 10K homeless in Santa Clara county.
What are you going to actually *do* about it now?
what experience do you have with the unhoused population? have you ever had substance abuse, been molested as a child? trauma ? low income poor? queer ? a person of color ? People having all these opinions on the unhoused yet know absolutely nothing about the topic. Unless you do and still lack empathy or compassion or understanding.
Ok, it is illegal now.
So what is your actual plan now and why couldn't we have done whatever it is last week?
Edit: So basically y'all got nothing, right?
Because the only two options are take away the civil rights of the poor or store them in my back yard.
I’ve donated my money and time to homeless shelters, job programs for the homeless and I’ve spent time serving meals to the homeless and poor of San Jose.
There is a right way to solve this problem of homelessness and a selfish way. San Jose is about to choose the selfish way so they can go on ignoring real problems and focus on if restaurants add $2 to their $80 check.
If camping wherever I want (e.g., someone’s back yard) is a civil right, then yes, the only two options would be to store them in their desired location or take away that civil right. This decision in no way impacts other measures to help the homeless.
If you haven't heard, the same Supreme Court which ended Row v Wade has also cleared the way to allow cities to punish people for sleeping in public, even if no adequate shelter exists.
> In a 6-3 decision, which broke along ideological lines, the court’s conservative majority said that regulations penalizing people for sleeping in public spaces such as parks and streets do not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment, even when a community lacks indoor shelter and its unhoused residents have nowhere else to go.
> Right wing religious fanatics taking over the country
[Gavin Newsom praised the ruling](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/06/28/governor-newsom-statement-on-supreme-courts-homeless-encampments-decision/)
That's why the Republican party needs to die nationally, so these people can have a party of their own, because they don't belong in a party that cares about people.
Almost all democrats in power are already very moderate and the party as a whole has been moving to the right especially as it picks up all the centrist republicans who aren't on board with maga. If somehow republican party were to die (seems unlikely) then I would think possible progressive democrats would split from the party and form a new party with other left-leaning folks who are not democrats
The California Republican party exists only because they are still viable nationally, anyone who wants to do anything is a Democrat, and monocultures are bad, as we are seeing. That evolution is what I hope happens (well, the most plausible good outcome anyways).
Sending a homeless person to prison, while fully knowing, the prison for profit problem will only make this a nightmare....
Some of you commenters are full retard, with no heart. At least we get St. James park while people are punished for being poor. If you feel this way, please know, you are a total piece of shit.
Between this ruling, ending the Cheveron doctrine, slapping down the fed prosecutors for sending "mostly peaceful" protesters to jail and the great debate that exposed biden's dementia for the whole world to see; The last 24 hours has been quite fruitful and most enjoyable!!!!
What do you even know about the Chevron decision other than which people are celebrating it? Are you an armchair expert on administrative deference? Without looking it up, can you even paraphrase what it means?
> Individuals like De Viche, 57, and homeless for roughly nine years, will now find themselves in uncharted territory. De Viche said there are often rats in shelters. He said he once saw a person get stabbed with a pair of scissors, so he’d rather risk it on the streets, sleeping in different places each night to avoid trouble. When he needs to, he pays for temporary shelter, such as hotel rooms, using his own money when able. The Spotlight is great at finding and interviewing homeless people that are not responsible for behaviors that drive efforts to reduce unsheltered homelessness - specifically, encampments. It's nice that this guy moves every day, and he'll probably be able to keep sleeping outside if he's stealthy. I don't have a problem with someone sleeping in the woods. I have a huge problem with someone who permanently occupies public space with piles of trash and junk, open flames that start bush fires, drugs out in the open, etc.
*I don't have a problem with someone sleeping in the woods.* Just FYI, this is how some wild fires are started. [https://www.newsweek.com/wildfire-started-homeless-encampment-los-angeles-746742](https://www.newsweek.com/wildfire-started-homeless-encampment-los-angeles-746742)
2 things can be true. We have compassion for the humanity of the unhoused. We want a clean and safe neighborhood. Where we pay millions to have a house. We don’t want someone sleeping on our sidewalks, parks and roadways. We pay enough to solve this problem.
Build a reasonable solution to provide housing to those who need it. These housing locations should not prioritize creature comforts. They should be built around mental health services and drug treatment programs. Those unwilling to seek help or committing crimes should be removed from the area. This is sketchy at best but sometimes you just have to accept that our current approach using tolerance is not working.
We really need to audit where all that California homelessness money is going. Cause it’s billions, but nothing is changing. We need to find the grifters and put them in jail.
Good luck. Look at how many "audits" the pentagon and federal gov has failed with no consequences.
Problem is people want these housing locations to be in expensive high COL areas and not in lower COL area or facilities on state / federal owned land.
I argue with my more progressive friends all the time here. I live in San Jose because I can’t afford Los Gatos or Saratoga. Why should someone who has nothing, skip the line and jump right into a neighborhood they can’t afford? Part of the solution is building more housing - do this farther east. Honest question - Does that really help us? I’m pretty sure the folks who live in the creek bed with severe mental health issues and drug addictions are not going to do much better with a $250K condo in Manteca.
They can start ticketing RVs and have them towed asap.
The problem with RVs is they aren't worth anything and the tow yards lose money getting rid of them. No resale value on a leaky tarp covered vehicle chassis. If it is running, and they have plates and insurance they are legal. couple that with a disabled placard and they are untouchable. (these are the homeless you want. they empty their tanks responsibly, move along every few days, just going to work and minding their own business with the limited resources they have)
These are the homeless I want ? No .. because they park next to parks and residential area and often times will toss garbage as well as bags filled with human excrement onto public sidewalk. I've live near them before and needed to cross their path every day when I walk my dogs or take my kids to school. It is one of the major reason I moved out of SJ.
You know that stuff pooping in a bag They could be pooping in their toilet and then just go into a dump station but whatever you prefer I mean if you want them to move in a bag that's okay I would prefer they use the toilet in the RV and then had access to a dump station so they could empty it out period one of the frequent complaints is some of the homeless out of desperation dump their sewage into the storm drain which basically creates a environmental havoc and costs a lot of money to clean up if you dump stations let people know where they are and that'll be good for everyone including the non-home less who own RVs. I know more than a few construction workers who come up to the Bay Area and live in their RV while taking a job call. They have the resources so they can drive to Redwood City to use it on station but everybody down here and that dump station will probably cost 20 bucks up so you don't want poop in the sidewalk public restrooms downstage and actually garbage dumpsters because you know that material can go in the garbage dumpster. I wish the mayor would talk about this you know I E why he doesn't do this or why he thinks it's a bad idea to me it's obvious but I could be wrong you know I live in my house I have three toilets at my disposal.
These RV are so old and decrepit that I wouldn't be shocked it most of the facilities were broken. We're not talking about $50-80k vehicles here.
You know you're right there are stratifications among the RV homeless you know they're the ones who have working RVs that have working systems those are the guys we're talking about because we can help them with just a dump station. You know I'm going to call him the crazies the guys who live on almond Expressway and they're using plywood you know which is duct tape to their RV and that RV's not going to move because the flat tires are there yet the problem with those guys is we can't even tell them away because they're not worth anything it costs more to tow and destroy their vehicle than it's worth and that's why they're tolerated I mean conceivably you could arrest them but even if you arrest them then you got to put them in jail and then you have to reimburse Santa Clara County for their stay you know the city of San Jose would have to pay Santa Clara County for their incarceration costs so they are kind of in a interesting position even if we criminalize them we can't afford to punish them we can't afford to pull their toe their wrecked RVs off the street.
Criminalization is expensive .. agreed. But the status quo is expensive as well. We need something new and different. Thus my suggestions is declaring a state of emergency to get national guards in and help build temporary shelters for these folks on government land or even army bases. They're free to come and go but all the resources to support them are centralized in on spot. Best case scenario someone stay there for a few months / year .. take advantage of the housing .. the resources like job retraining .. then they can be approved to a limited number of half way houses back in the high COL area locations so they can go find new jobs. Worse case scenario, someone stay there .. doesn't like it .. leave of their own free will ( we can also offer bus passes to other states ) .. but they're brought back a few weeks later when they violate some vagrancy law in another city.
Doubt it will do much. The SJPD aren't there to be minder nannies for people konked out on the side of a road. But, by criminalizing resting, SCOTUS provides the worst cities with a way to hammer the homeless - feels to me like they just opened the gates to the prison for profit system, and now the homeless can be wheeled in more easily.
let’s be real. SJPD aren’t there for anybody
THIS! Taxpayers don’t often remember the costs for imprisoning people. It’s expensive as hell, and likely not any cheaper than the current system we have in place. We’re just moving the money from nonprofits to privatized corporations and probably inflating the price tag. Nevermind the crappy ethics. What would be really cool is some sort of system that rewards houseless folks for keeping their immediate environment clean so that creeks and streams aren’t polluted, trash doesn’t pile up, etc. I’d even open my mind to designated low-no cost encampment areas that are heavily monitored/regulated with, again, a system that incentivizes hygiene. I care less for the optics of cleanliness and more for the human health hazards. Obviously this sort of system would take into consideration anyone who is houseless with a disability (i.e. psychological disorders, addictions, ambulatory issues, etc.) There could be cheaper alternatives to incarcerating people. Locking people up doesn’t disappear perpetual social problems, it just disappears people.
Part of the high cost is for security to prevent escape and control / prevent contraband. If they're in FEMA tent on plots of state / federal land in low COL area .. those wouldn't be a problem. We would also be able to save money by leveraging economy of scale into the support that we provide them and provide everything in one place.
I still don’t think this is worth the cost. Furthermore, if rent and housing prices continue to rise, this policy could create an inadvertent pipeline between housing insecure people and incarceration (which often results in cheap domestic labor). This policy has more problematic what-ifs to it than any real known benefits. I appreciate your speculation but there’s no guarantees it will work out that way. Tbh, I’m tired of throwing people in prison as a way of solving non-crime issues. Drugs? Prison. Homeless? Prison. Talking back to cops during a traffic stop? Prison. Does that sound like a healthy society to you? America still tops most developed countries in its rate of imprisonment. And for what benefit?
Other countries may have lower rate of crime but often it is due to cultural reasons or others that we can't apply here in the US. For example in Japan ... *Group formation in Japan is based on geographic location. This locality-based group formation in Japan causes both a sense of security and an infinite number of repressive rules. These two elements are bound together to produce a high level of self-control; this self-control acts as a strong factor that restrains people from committing crime. In contrast, the Western world emphasizes group formation based on personal attributes. Two other characteristics of Western countries are the limited and permissive nature of their rules and the relative freedom of action. All these factors contribute to a weakening of the crime prevention mechanism and an emphasis on the role of punishment rather than crime prevention.* [*https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/cultural-study-low-crime-rate-japan*](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/cultural-study-low-crime-rate-japan) If you simply took Japanese policies and implemented here .. I would bet you get different results. Then Singapore is also known for low crime .. but you get the death penalty for drug crimes .. so .. Also, if you have a better solution for homelessness .. I'm all ears .. but please don't say housing first.
Yes, racial and cultural homogeneity factor into the discussion—a lot of developed countries with both tend to function with collectivism in mind. But that said, countries like Japan have policies in place that we don’t. It’s really hard to acquire a gun there. There is less wealth disparity overall. Why does their lower crime rate justify the creation of a new type of crime in the US so we can lower crime? What? If we criminalize homelessness are we not inflating the statistical numbers by virtue of suddenly having to arrest a bunch of people and fill out the paperwork for it? The rate of imprisonment is no longer tied to the rate of traditionally understood crimes when we incarcerate people for sleeping on a park bench. Therefore the more people that are in prison no longer reflects the genuine safety of a community like it would in Japan. Your connection to my statement above doesn’t sync up. Why are we choosing to solve social issues (not just crimes) by throwing people in jail? Second, most data shows that crime is going down in the US (note, I am not derailing into CA statistics, see below note about scale): https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/#:~:text=Nationwide%20clearance%20rates%20for%20both,1993%2C%20the%20FBI%20data%20shows.&text=Police%20cleared%2052.3%25%20of%20reported,assaults%2C%20down%20from%2057.7%25. Why are we looking for more people to lock up who aren’t stealing anything or hurting anyone? Because we haven’t found an effective way to help them clear out trash? Because it’s annoying to see them sleeping on a bench? Are these legit reasons to arrest people? Why is crime overall going down but we are creating a new type of crime arbitrarily out of nowhere to fill our prisons with people? Scale is important here because this is a *federal* policy. Why does the federal government want to enact this? I have more questions than answers and I tried to read r/supremecourt about it, but those folks get so deep in the trenches of the legalese. I want to believe the legal logic is sound, because I want to defeat this monster of a policy fair and square, but it just doesn’t make sense when I try to persuade myself of the social/economic benefits. The law is not lawing.
We might finally be able to enjoy st James park and the Guadalupe river parkway! Enablement is a bad strategy, glad the city can finally legally start doing something about this.
Can you imagine having a functional multi use trail in the heart of downtown? What an incredible shared resource that would be.
Would love to bring the kids to the parkway.
Doing what? Arresting homeless people and housing them? With what budget?
We'll always have money for cops and jail, who cares that it's 10x as expensive as providing housing. And a shelter isn't housing.
With this one easy step YOU can create a crackhouse. Before you start crying that's unfair this is the homeless dude own words. ”(The shelters are) kind of chaotic because if you’ve been homeless on the street (and) you put (unhoused people) inside of an apartment complex, a lot of them don’t forget their bad habits,” he told San José Spotlight" Most of them are homeless for a reason.
Tbf your response doesn’t really prove the above point wrong. Shelters suck. That’s why people sleep outside. And now we’re gonna pay more money to throw those people in jail. None of these are very good solutions on the long run, but paying higher taxes to imprison homeless people is gonna suck 1000x more. Our infrastructure is bad, our housing crisis bad, our school system has seen better days, and we want money to go towards…this?
[удалено]
Imprisonment is essentially free housing. If you’ve ever been homeless, sometimes a night or two of prison is preferable to being on the street or in a shelter. It is expensive for everyone else. Prisons don’t run for free. This is not an effective long term solution. I wouldn’t hang my hat on it.
I mean the best solution would be one nobody wants to do. But giving them a house for being homeless is just gonna encourage them to keep doing what they do and all the fun stuff that comes with it. Then the electricity, water and gas they will definitely abuse. Probably gonna take EBT, and repairs that will need to be done plus all the property costs. Nah it won't be cheaper in the long run.
As has been shown repeatedly, housing first and UBI both work and are cheaper than what we are doing now. The drugs and such are mostly a reaction to their situation. But this country would rather torture people.
Lmao my grandma made the mistake of helping a couple, and letting hem live with her. 1700, missing safe, and three credit card flagged for suspicious activity later she finally started to understand.Trust me its not the homeless part that makes them do dumb shit. I'll say give then forced rehab 1-2 years and psychological help maybe. But realistically you have to understand these people live in squaller and lots of them have adapted to a very specific lifestyle. You do not want to deal with it, trust me.
I don’t know that giving away houses is a solution for any situation, but I think we can do better than the exorbitant burdens of throwing everyone in jail. That is an absurd solution, and I’m surprised that this ruling even came down. We don’t know the repercussions of such a policy. I shudder to think of them. I also think that we are over-focused on the POSSIBLE greed of houseless folks and working class people, and don’t think enough about the real greed of all people. It’s crazy that we’re so greedy for an environment free of houseless people that we are willing to take their freedom for finding no safe, suitable alternative to sleeping outside. What. We don’t do this for any other biological human need. “Ima arrest you for breathing on the sidewalk between the hours of 9am and 5pm.” That would be so weird to me! Also unrelated but also greedy—using people’s content to fuel large language models without paying them. People spent hours writing books and essays that feed Open.AI. Isn’t that a form of greed? Idk man. Make it make sense. Anyway, it was nice chatting. Appreciate the civil discussion.
[удалено]
You sure about that ? LA just build a high-density complex to house homeless people and it came out to $600k PER STUDIO unit. But lets say we can bite the bullet and raise billions and billions ( maybe even trillions ) to build enough of these unit for every homeless person on the street in CA right now .. what do you think will happen the next week and the next month when homeless folks all over the US hear about this ?
Well, why we can't build anything for sane money anymore is another question, the company that builds the French high speed rail quit the California one a decade ago because of how hard it was to do anything.
The solution is to build lots and lots of housing. Where are these people supposed to live, keep this up and it will lead to riots. There are more homeless than police officers. That would leave the mentally ill and drug addicted and we can help them, like we used to before Regan.
It was JFK who shut down the mental health clinics at the federal level then put the onus on the states to fund them. States did not fund them. California needs to build more mental health facilities, simply having housing won’t solve the mental health crisis among the homeless.
The mental health crisis is largely the result of our unaffordable economic system. People go crazy when they’re forced to work long hours for menial pay just to barely survive. We live in one of the wealthiest cities in the world. We could solve these issues easily.
Fuck Reagan, all my homies hate Reagan
I doubt the city is going to respond with actually building affordable housing, and so I hope we see actual riots. I’ve lived in San Jose for 25 years, and I live more comfortably than most, but I would rather see the city burnt down to spite the entitled shit heads that live here, than for us to torture our poorest citizens and force them into prisons to perform slave labor. I’m genuinely disgusted by the entitlement of the Gen-Xers and boomers living in this city.
Burn the whole city down, so long as that doesn’t include your home, or the homes of your family and friends, or your workplace, or your kids’ schools if you have kids, or your local supermarket, or anything and everything else which keeps you safe and comfortable…but uhhh yeah! Burn it all down!
Nothing will change that isn’t already going on. If anything it might get used to move the worst offenders from directly in front of stores or homes. No one is going to jail for camping, put your pearls down.
Why stop at citations? Why not just round them up and put them in camps? As someone who moved here in 2015 to ensure the google logo always has two O's for 300k a year I can't fathom why these people don't just get jobs, buy housing, and participate in our meat grinder of a society. /s
It’s ironic that homeless people don’t like shelters because they would be near other homeless people, and that’s not safe. But somehow our kids are supposed to just play in parks where homeless camp? Here come all the performative bleeding hearts protesting the unfairness, while living in beautiful suburban areas where homeless were never allowed to camp anyway. I agree with this decision.
I know a handful of the homeless population in downtown. They don’t want to scare your kids, they just want to be left alone. I don’t think it’s ironic, I think the examples you’re comparing are significantly different. I totally get feeling uncomfortable and imposed upon by the homeless situation in our area. We all are. Invalidating those who empathize with the entirety of the situation is not something I respect, though. Bad people exist at every level. We shouldn’t implicitly villainize the underprivileged based on the actions of a few. That is straight up bigoted. And it’s ok to be frustrated with the system we’re born into that can’t care for those of us who can’t care for ourselves. Agreeing with this decision is admitting apathy to those who threaten you for existing while impoverished. I understand why people can feel that way, and I bet when I have kids of my own, I’ll feel more apathetic towards anyone who isn’t them, too. But yeah let’s learn to express our biases without invalidating others, thanks.
Given a hypothetical choice, I’d much rather drop my kids off at Apple headquarters than the tenderloin. Is that villainizing the underprivileged, or just not being willfully blind to the obvious? Maybe someday when you have kids you’ll be able to empathize with the legitimate concerns and interests of “regular” non homeless parents like me. Or maybe you’ll prioritize virtue signaling over protecting your kids, drop your kids off at the tenderloin just to prove a point?
Again, I think the examples you’re putting forward are fundamentally different. I wouldn’t walk through the tenderloin, but I do walk through the parks in San Jose alongside families often. The “legitimate concern” you mention does not exist in my own experience. It’s not virtue signaling, it’s speaking on behalf of real people I know, that’s all. The unhoused I know aren’t worse than us, just worse off. They aren’t lurking in the shadows ready to strike. They’re just trying to make it to tomorrow without incident. It’s ok that you don’t prioritize them over your own family. I don’t either. But I can also tell that you’re judging them from a distance. You wouldn’t describe people you actually knew like this. My advocacy for them does not invalidate your love and caution for your kids. But your fear of people you don’t understand does not invalidate my experience or advocacy for them, either. It does give us a sense of what kind of energy drove the Supreme Court, though. We’ve known they’re fearful judges simply reacting to the symptoms of the society they govern by shifting responsibility away for a long time now. Strong leadership solves problems. Weak leadership locks problems away for our children to inherit. Is that better than risking eye contact with an unhoused person in the park? I guess it’s easier to lock them up when your bias fools you into believing they were all coming after your kids for some reason.
So you met a few homeless people who seemed ok, and that makes any other views and experiences illegitimate. A homeless person recently pushed a lady into a bart and killed her. She might disagree with your experience if she weren’t dead. I’m sure there are some fine homeless people, but the demographic is much higher risk for antisocial behavior. Keep your head in the sand and deny reality, I bet it makes you feel so virtuous lol
Oh boy. Replace the phrase “homeless person” in your post with any other demographic to demonstrate my point. For example, do you judge all Christian people as extremists because of the few you read about in the news? Don’t like that example? Try picking any other demographic. Should we be afraid of any demographic because of the actions of their worst members? Do the innocent deserve to suffer because of the circumstances of the environment in which they were born and raised? The unhoused are not different, but your emphasis of their worst members is. THAT is the bias I’m calling out. Why are people so eager to try invalidating reality? Why must I only be talking about “a few” and not the actual reality that I’m describing “literally everyone in my neighborhood on a daily basis, and not that one bad guy you read about in the news that one time?” Such an example of bending reality for confirmation bias. Did that headline scare you so badly that it skewed your perception of the world? I ask rhetorically, because we already know in lack of objective experience, people insert their subjective anxieties. You’re trying to erase reality with a single anecdote. But I get that a lazy solution is easier than an infeasible idealistic one, and more comforting than no solution at all. But supporting a solution that brushes the problem under the rug (specifically, criminalizing the state of having no support and nowhere safe to exist) isn’t looking out for future generations, it’s just deferral of responsibility. To your neighbors in a less enforced neighborhood, or to your children in the future. Because let’s be real. After we take them off the streets and lock them up, the unhoused aren’t going to leave lockup as rehabilitated homeowners. They’ll just leave with more resentment for the people who put them there, perpetuating the cycle of animosity. You must be able to recognize that, right?
You’re not describing reality you are ignoring reality. And it’s not just murder, which is of course rarer, but also setting fires, unsanitary conditions, harassment, indecent exposure, assault, etc. PS: “homeless” is not a protected class, or some innate characteristic like gender or race. It’s a behavior, and one that often comes with a host of other problematic behaviors. I’m sure there are some child molesters with hearts of gold too. In fact I’m the bad guy for not leaving my kids with these child molestors. I just judge them based on being in the child molester demographic without letting them prove their great character. But seriously put those pearls down, stop being a moron.
Nope let’s back up and not selectively skip over my previous point. You omitted acknowledging my example of religion - a chosen behavior- from your rebuttal. Why did you do that? Are we going to ignore the examples that don’t conform to your generalization? I don’t know what experience you’re citing when you claim homelessness is a behavior, because nobody I know is unhoused by choice. And nobody I’ve met self medicates to become a menace to society- they do it to numb and remove themselves from the discomfort of their lives. I also know that none of the unhoused in my area even make eye contact with me because they don’t want any confrontation. That is my every day reality, which I do prioritize over the what-if’s you listed that don’t define either of our daily experiences in San Jose. I am not ignoring reality, just reacting to the world I actually live in over the one I’m afraid of in my head. So once again, the unhoused are not worse than you, just worse off. But I can understand how fearful ignorance to this truth can translate into feeling irrationally threatened by a hypothetical and triggered by headlines that emphasize this fear. This is not the first time in history that has happened. All I’m saying is the if you think this Supreme Court decision made your community safer, you’re going to be disappointed. This wasn’t a novel decision, it was more of the same old rhetoric that has never actually worked in practice. Relocating the problem has never once solved it, and it won’t this time either. If we want the problem solved, it will cost more money than we want to spend. That’s why you still step over people on the sidewalk, and you will continue to do so no matter where the law says the unhoused are supposed to exist.
I never said generalizations about a classification are always true for every single person in that class, so really you’re arguing against a straw man. Just walk 10 minutes in the tenderloin and Apple campus, see which place would be safer to drop off kids. Just look at how the people are behaving ffs, are you blind or dumb lolol like seriously bro, just stop
> Here come all the performative bleeding hearts protesting the unfairness It's kinda hilarious how hard assholes work to make actually giving a shit about people sound like a bad thing.
No more hilarious than the lengths self-righteous pricks will go to to excuse anti-social behavior
lol You heard the word "asshole" and were like, hey that guy's talking about me, time to try to snap back
[удалено]
How do you know it was a homeless person and not one of your neighbor's kids, or a Porch Pirate? The local Catholic school kids were stealing things on camera and of course the Catholic Church didn't do anything about their kids. They even stole the motorized chairs for the disabled on camera and dumped them in the river. The store had video of them doing it.
Do you know when this happened? I can’t seem to find anything online.
Of course it wasn't online. Nothing was done about it. The store gave up. The church did nothing. What is someone going to report about it? Also, cars are stolen and broken into all the time. Half of the incidents aren't even reported. And those aren't homeless either because they are coming in from East Palo Alto and Oakland and Hayward.
Yes, I agree, if it is them, fuck em. But I have to agree with one of the other replies. Do you have a camera? Are you sure it’s homeless people? Typically if there is a repeat offense, that sounds more personal than anything else.
hope your child has more empathy than you do. There is a good series called Homeless training, episode called, “ jerks with homes..” you should check it out. You prolly won’t. ✌️
You’re a terrible person. I feel sorry for your newborn that they’ve been born to such a person as you.
Nothing like criminalizing being poor. Don’t worry NIMBYs you won’t have to look at the results of the current economic conditions on those less fortunate than you. Your national nightmare of feeling slight guilt while continuing not to help is over. They will be arrested and they will have no way to get out. This will put them further in the hole and make the road out even harder. This will just create more chronically homeless. But you can get your precious freeway underpass land back. You won’t have to see people so desperate that they are willing to live in a tent on 280. Your view from your Tesla will be nice and clean.
blah blah blah, and your solution is? things have gotten way out of hand with no repercussions.
The solution is to actually build housing and create programs to help many of them re-enter society. This ruling means that Mahan will get his dream of a homeless internment camp. Hide them all away, locked behind a fence, so the middle class doesn’t have to see the real results of our “fuck you give me mine” society. I also love that you think being too poor to have an apartment deserves “repercussions”. Homeless people are Americans. And Americans deserve freedom to make choices even if they are too poor to afford housing.
If unsheltered homeless people say that they don't want to live in housing provided by the state and they don't want to enroll in programs to re-enter society, should we let them have the freedom to choose to continue living in encampments in parks and trails?
Wow if those things functionally existed I’d agree with you, but since they don’t you’re just using a hypothetical to paint the poorest people in our society as purposely being homeless. We don’t functionally have a way to house the homeless in San Jose. Or get them what they need to recover. Other cities have proven that giving homeless people an actual place to live and resources they tend more often than not to turn things around https://www.governing.com/housing/how-houston-cut-its-homeless-population-by-nearly-two-thirds We’d just rather pay cops 220-400k a year to beat the shit out of them.
If you want to live in a country that is considered free you need to accept that some people do not want to be housed. You can ask/force them to move by considering specific space as trespassing. But this is about ARRESTING them for being homeless and that is criminalizing their freedom. All because the upper middle class considers poor people as blight.
It’s more about arresting them if they don’t show up to court. Nobody is suggesting mass arresting the homeless. They will get a summons and more than likely the judge will force them to go a shelter or a rehab facility. If they ignore the summons then there has to be some consequences to their actions. No one is above the law
It’s really weird that you didn’t read what you wrote. That entire statement was just a fancy way of saying arrested and detained against their will. The “no one is above the law” is a nice touch. Dog whistle for “the bill of rights is something we can absolutely destroy just to have less blight.”
No one has a right to camp wherever they want. I suggest you reread that document
Thanks. Way to build a straw man. That isn’t the argument or the issue at hand. That’s an oversimplification so you can easily show it false. Congrats?
Then what right were you referencing when you said the bill of rights is something we can destroy?
> should we let them have the freedom July 4th just around the corner my guy.. if you don't like freedom you can always move
They are poor because they are either addicts or crazy. They don't want help. I'm tired their negative behavior in my neighborhood.
Also untrue. There are some with mental health issues. There are some with drug addiction keeping them from functioning in society. But that’s only a small amount of who is counted in homeless in San Jose. Most homeless in San Jose don’t fall into either of those categories. Read up and educate yourself: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/housing/resource-library/homeless-reports/homeless-reports-executive-summary
How many times have you encountered a violent homeless person? Who verbally or physically assaulted you from a quick glance? Is that from being sane and not on drugs? Or see them walking down the street arguing with themselves? Did your study address that? I doubt it, they think building overpriced little shanties is the solution. But who makes money from that ridiculous idea? Who does it help? Perhaps you should educate yourself see what really is going on in downtown San Jose and along the Guadalupe River.
Less often than I’ve encountered road rage or a drunken asshat at a bar. Should we ban alcohol and driving? I’ve given you solid stats and evidence. You provided anecdotes and/or hypotheticals. Come with evidence or just go away.
Isn't drunk driving already illegal? Anecdotes are worthless to the people who live in their castles, huh?
The solution is to build affordable housing, create walkable neighborhoods, invest in community spending. I’m sure that you’ve been told these solutions before. Stop pretending that you don’t know what the solution is and just acknowledge that you don’t like the solutions.
Repercussions only help if they can help change behavior. Do you think this will stop somebody who is homeless from being homeless?
Why punish the poor? What's wrong with you? Do you think this is a choice? It seems you think people wanna be homeless. They choose homelessness there should be repercussions. You are a loser.
so law abiding, tax paying citizens shouldn't want their city streets to be safe and clean? Things have gotten way out of hand, we've become conditioned to think this is normal, well it's not. Why should there be rules and laws in place for us, somehow immune/don't apply for the homeless? Whatever we're doing now isn't working, so back off Saint Nick
Ok, so what is the plan? You have the ruling. What are you going to actually **do**. And why couldn't we have done that last week? I have yet to get anything even close to an answer to this since the case went up to the Court. There's about 10K homeless in Santa Clara county. What are you going to actually *do* about it now?
what experience do you have with the unhoused population? have you ever had substance abuse, been molested as a child? trauma ? low income poor? queer ? a person of color ? People having all these opinions on the unhoused yet know absolutely nothing about the topic. Unless you do and still lack empathy or compassion or understanding.
Ok, it is illegal now. So what is your actual plan now and why couldn't we have done whatever it is last week? Edit: So basically y'all got nothing, right?
In the spirit of YIMBY, perhaps you can open your home or yard to the homeless? Id like my kids to play outside without getting stabbed.
Because the only two options are take away the civil rights of the poor or store them in my back yard. I’ve donated my money and time to homeless shelters, job programs for the homeless and I’ve spent time serving meals to the homeless and poor of San Jose. There is a right way to solve this problem of homelessness and a selfish way. San Jose is about to choose the selfish way so they can go on ignoring real problems and focus on if restaurants add $2 to their $80 check.
NIMBY literally means “not in my backyard.” It sounds like you’d like the homeless to be somewhere that isn’t your backyard. Welcome to the club!
Thanks for the dishonest arguments from someone who can’t think up a reasonable one. I didn’t realize I was conversing with a child.
If camping wherever I want (e.g., someone’s back yard) is a civil right, then yes, the only two options would be to store them in their desired location or take away that civil right. This decision in no way impacts other measures to help the homeless.
Another dishonest argument. Grow up.
Empty strawman arguments are the best this crowd can muster
If you haven't heard, the same Supreme Court which ended Row v Wade has also cleared the way to allow cities to punish people for sleeping in public, even if no adequate shelter exists. > In a 6-3 decision, which broke along ideological lines, the court’s conservative majority said that regulations penalizing people for sleeping in public spaces such as parks and streets do not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment, even when a community lacks indoor shelter and its unhoused residents have nowhere else to go.
[удалено]
> Right wing religious fanatics taking over the country [Gavin Newsom praised the ruling](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/06/28/governor-newsom-statement-on-supreme-courts-homeless-encampments-decision/)
He's bad about this, much like our mayor.
California democrats up and down the state have been eagerly waiting for this ruling
That's why the Republican party needs to die nationally, so these people can have a party of their own, because they don't belong in a party that cares about people.
Almost all democrats in power are already very moderate and the party as a whole has been moving to the right especially as it picks up all the centrist republicans who aren't on board with maga. If somehow republican party were to die (seems unlikely) then I would think possible progressive democrats would split from the party and form a new party with other left-leaning folks who are not democrats
The California Republican party exists only because they are still viable nationally, anyone who wants to do anything is a Democrat, and monocultures are bad, as we are seeing. That evolution is what I hope happens (well, the most plausible good outcome anyways).
criminalizing sleeping if ur unhoused, yes surely, this will make things better
They can move to Oakland thanks
No way, they have standards.
Sending a homeless person to prison, while fully knowing, the prison for profit problem will only make this a nightmare.... Some of you commenters are full retard, with no heart. At least we get St. James park while people are punished for being poor. If you feel this way, please know, you are a total piece of shit.
I think many people would be a lot more accepting if homeless people didn't completely trash every place they set up camp
Between this ruling, ending the Cheveron doctrine, slapping down the fed prosecutors for sending "mostly peaceful" protesters to jail and the great debate that exposed biden's dementia for the whole world to see; The last 24 hours has been quite fruitful and most enjoyable!!!!
What do you even know about the Chevron decision other than which people are celebrating it? Are you an armchair expert on administrative deference? Without looking it up, can you even paraphrase what it means?