Alt Text
This cartoon has four panels. All the panels show a gritty commercial doorway – the kind that’s recessed a few feet into the building – on a city sidewalk. There’s litter and graffiti here.
There are two characters in the comic strip. The first character is a homeless man sleeping in the doorway, wearing a zip-up sweatshirt over a t-shirt and a dull red knit cap, and with a full beard. The other character is a muscular-looking cop dressed in a police uniform and carrying a baton. In defiance of tradition, he is cleanshaven. I’ll call these two characters KNITCAP and COP.
PANEL 1
Knitcap, covered by a brown blanket and with his head pillowed on some rolled-up clothes, is lying in a doorway, apparently asleep. The cop is using his baton to poke knitcap in the side. The cop has a somewhat sadistic grin.
COP: Hey, you! Get up! We’ve outlawed sleeping in public! You’re not allowed anymore!
PANEL 2
Knitcap is sitting up, rubbing sleep out of his eyes with one hand. He speaks calmly. The cop watches, smirking, arms akimbo.
KNITCAP: In that case, I guess I’ll sleep in a hotel tonight.
PANEL 3
A close-up of Knitcap. He’s stroking his chin with a hand, as if thinking through his options.
KNITCAP: Or should I sleep in my townhouse instead? Or my Hamptons place? I’ll call my butler and ask what he thinks!
PANEL 4
Knitcap, grinning, is now holding a hand next to his face, thumb and pinky finger extended, pretending it’s a phone as he talks. The cop is glaring and slapping his baton against his palm.
KNITCAP: Smithers? Smithers old boy! My super fun street sleeping holiday is done. Which of my mansions shall I sleep in tonight.
COP (thought): Next step: Outlaw sarcasm.
Fuck. This. Conclusion.
Cities in the US have always been able to police sleeping in public spaces GIVEN there was an alternative (e.g. a non-full shelter) where people could go to instead. What changed with the new US supreme court ruling is that they are now allowed to do this regardless of weather or not there is any alternatives.
People need to sleep. It is a biological necessity. Homelessness is often not a choice, but can be temporary if the right resources are available.
How narcissistic do you have to be to think that the person you witnessed wanted to be there? Homelessness is out of control on the west-coast of the US (and elsewhere) but fines and jail time aren't going to make these people magically stop existing.
Side note: Multiple studies have shown that homelessness is directly correlated to housing affordability. If you want to help fight homelessness, support building more affordable housing (which usually equates to denser housing).
Cities always had this right the Supreme Court just upheld it.
I never stated that.
I don’t see homeless encampments out in the open by highways in other parts of the country. Yes there are homeless, but it is on a whole other level on the West Coast.
Cool idea sounds like something you should fight for in your community.
This is about human rights vs. city spending
When someone posts about how unpleasant it is to see other humans sleeping/eating/pooping and concludes from that cities should be able to stop them (or throw them in jail) to make themselves feel better; the implication is that these people have alternatives and are just being rude or lazy.
I'm pointing out that many of these people are stuck and have no alternative. By appealing this case to the supreme court, Grants Pass (an city) was admitting that these people had no alternative and they still wanted to punish them.
The one basic rule that was upheld by the ninth circuit was that cities must first give them an alternative. If they have no alternatives, then it is cruel and unusual punishment. I don't know how anyone can argue that it is not cruel to throw someone in jail for sleeping in their car (one of the plaintiffs was sleeping in her car) when they have no where else to go. People need to sleep: it is not a choice.
Additionally, large homeless encampments in other parts of the country has two main drivers:
Where are these magical places that provide enough beds? I'm not doubting you, I just haven't ever heard of any.
NYC is a classic example of a US city where homelessness is less visible because they provide shelters and other public services. That is NOT to say that homelessness isn't an issue there, it 100% is. Its just that it looks different than in, say, Seattle.
Europe (in general, though it varies) also has a large percentage of it's homeless population sheltered.
Feel free to campaign to spend your local funds on the homeless rather than schools, parks, etc. I don’t presume to impose my beliefs on another locality. I’m merely pointing out each city and state has the right to set their own respective laws regulating the public commons.
I never stated or implied any indication that those people are rude or lazy. That is entirely of your own making. I’m merely making the point that they are occupying the public commons and the public has the right to regulate that space as they see fit. While sharing my first hand experience as to why they may seek to restrict vagrancy.
If you travel to other countries you are often required to show that you have accommodations to stay and a return ticket. Otherwise they will not allow you to enter the country. So there is precedent for these types of laws.
However the United States is Federal Republic that has a number of states with a patchwork of laws. As a citizen you are guaranteed the right to travel freely but you are also subject to local laws. If the citizenry has freely elected politicians who have enacted laws deeming vagrancy illegal and that law stands up to judicial review then that is the law until the public is convinced to elect officials who will change that law.
The west coast is fairly liberal as compared to most of the rest of the country. The problem with vagrants has become such an issue that the public seeks a more restrictive approach. I prefer to respect the will of the public who live there annd experience the problem first hand over your sympathetic platitudes.
Mostly true, you’re leaving out weather as a factor. Being homeless without shelter in Wyoming is much more difficult and life threatening in winter months than California or Florida. I’d much rather sleep on a sunny California beach than the cold wind swept plains.
Obviously city budgets are a whole other can of worms, but to be clear, shelter beds are almost always cheaper than jail beds. The cheapest option would be not to put people in jail.
This isn't a question of legality or ability! Obviously in the US it is now legal to fine and imprison people for sleeping in public spaces. This is a question of morality: is that law moral? Should we fine and imprison people for not being able to afford a roof over their heads?
If the majority that you respect gets together and votes to, idk, enslave a group of people and have them work on sugar plantations. That doesn't mean their laws aren't violating basic human rights, just because it's legal.
What are you talking about? Unhoused people aren't tourists. We're talking about citizens of a country, the vast majority of whom were born and raised there.
How kind of you to respect the will of the people denying the humanity of their fellow citizens... Are you saying you personally don't have an opinion on the matter? Does homelessness not affect you?
Sounds great, feel free to advocate for that solution within your community. Your keyboard warrior skills are sharp, I’m sure the community will rally around your idea of spending money on homeless over schools and other services!
Moral? Yes, yes it is. We should not expect a handful of communities\states to bear the social and financial cost of housing homeless from other parts of the country just because they are attractive destinations. They have every right to dissuade further immigration of homeless to their community.
Classic example of a false equivalency fallacy. No one is violating the constitution or advocating for enslavement. Comparing the two is the same as when people start comparing modern groups in the US to WW2 Nazis. Sorry there is no comparison.
As stated before the community has a right to regulate the public commons. You don’t have a right to sleep, eat, litter and shit on the street in front of a families house for years on end. It is a public health and safety hazard.
You seemed to have missed or are being intentionally obtuse about the last part of that statement. I pointed out that this is an example of a precedent for similar laws at the state level.
How elitist of you to ignore the will of the people. You seem to want to impose your morality at the cost of other people’s communities.
Yes homelessness affects me. My kids went to a school with the largest percentage of homeless children in attendance in the country. I’ve had to pull my kid out of a class because of a homeless child with mental issues who would violently attack teacher’s, students and even my own kid. In one class there wasn’t a day for two weeks straight when the class had to stand outside while the teachers and admins tried to deal with the kid.
I can sympathize with the homeless kid and hope they get help. But I will not put their welfare over the safety and education of my own.
There is a social cost to what you are proposing. Those communities and the people affected within them have found that cost to be too high.
Thanks.
It seems we have different concepts about where unhoused people come from. Are they coming from other states? Or are they losing housing while residing where they are?
This survey at least, would indicate the latter: https://sfstandard.com/2023/05/22/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/
The city that brought the case, Grants Pass, is not a fancy tourist destination (and isn't really liberal). It is regularly below freezing in the winter, rains often, and is nowhere near a beach. Further, it has comparatively few resources for unhoused people. It's mid-sized (40,000 or so) and it's relatively isolated: why would an unhoused person go there to sleep on the street?
Did not mean to imply that they were equivalent. Just using an extreme example to show that the majority can be wrong, and that it is nonsense to base your morality on what is legal or what your able to do.
The case WAS made that penalizing people for sleeping in public spaces when they have nowhere else to go violates the 8th amendment; and while the majority of the supreme court did not agree, I maintain that is immoral and wrong to do so, and that a city choosing to do so would fall under "cruel and unusual punishment", violating the US constitution.
I totally agree. Communities should do something about this; but regardless of what they do it is going to take money away that could have been used on other things (schools and other services). Jail and police aren't free. Shelter beds aren't free.
Advocating for the humane treatment of others isn't ignoring the will of the people. I'm not a czar and I'm not advocating for fascist policies. I'm saying that unhoused people are people; and they deserve to be treated with dignity, respect and empathy. Fining and jailing people who have nowhere else to go is immoral, regardless if people have voted to say that it's okay.
How would helping this child be in conflict with the welfare for your children? In many states there are early childhood intervention programs basically for this exact issue.
You can either pay with money, or with the cost of having homeless children in your community. Putting unhoused people in jail costs money and is cruel. Building and running a shelter costs money. Leaving people on the street without any alternatives (as many cities have done) is horrible.
Of course, there is a percentage of people who you just can't help, and for them it could be necessary to use a more heavy hand. But that's mostly not what we've been discussing; which is, what should cities be allowed to do regardless of shelter beds or other alternatives?