Any locals care to chime in on this? I am skeptical for a few reasons. It’s always been legal to enforce the law regarding open fires, littering, drug use, etc. And it’s always been allowed to enforce anti-camping ordinances when shelter is available. My understanding is that this ruling only changes the situation when no shelter is available. It’s not about enforcing the rules, it’s about sweeping the problem into someone else’s neighborhood when you aren’t providing a real solution. Those neighborhoods will of course be the ones with the least political capital—the poor, racialized, etc.
Breed claims this is about people who refuse to accept help. But is this true? What help are they providing and why was it not sufficient prior to the SC ruling? I don’t live in SF so I’d love if someone more informed can either confirm or deny my suspicions here.