Posted on 07/20/2023 6:24:33 AM PDT by Bon of Babble
Cholera anyone?
No phone no pool no pets
The problem that we’ve had in LA - and SF - is that the port-a-potties are taken over prostitutes to ply their trade - that and the homeless won’t use them.
I suspect it’s just too much effort to walk over to one when one is high on fentanyl - easier to relieve oneself right on the sidewalk.
No phone, no pool, no pets
I ain’t got no cigarettes
“The only solution is to enforce vagrancy laws, clean up the streets, and send hardcore homeless to some kind of local government detention”
Cleaning up the streets you can do, but the Supreme Court is not going to allow you to arrest people just for “vagrancy” or send them to detention camps. It’s not constitutional.
You can get around that maybe by charging them with other offenses, because they probably commit plenty of legitimate ones, like drug offenses, or “aggressive panhandling”, theft, etc, but you can’t just say, basically, “you exist and I don’t like looking at you, go to jail”.
SCOTUS has ruled against police have broad discretion to arrest people for "vagrancy" if it merely involves them walking down the street, or standing on street-corners, etc...
what about pitching tents or sleeping on public property? Urinating in public? leaving trash and waste? using or selling drugs?
Democrats need a large permanent underclass at all times. If they can’t create more, they import more. Usually both.
Selective enforcement.
If I put up a mailbox without the proper approvals, SWAT would be at my door.
“what about pitching tents or sleeping on public property?”
Well, courts have ruled that you cannot be arrested simply for sleeping or camping on public property. I don’t think that particular issue has worked its way all the way up the Supreme Court yet, but lower courts have definitely ruled that way.
“Urinating in public? leaving trash and waste? using or selling drugs?”
Those are crimes, and you could probably arrest 99% of the homeless for those, but they are also misdemeanors, except for the drug offenses. You won’t be able to send people to a camp, or detain them on some high bail awaiting trial for a misdemeanor. Some of those things won’t even carry a criminal penalty so I doubt you can even arrest someone for say, littering.
Looks more like Mexico City every day...
“Looks like a fire hazard.”
It is a fired hazard. Should a fire start in one of those trailers the others are going to burn as well. They are so close together that getting fire fighting equipment into there to fight the fire would be impossible. People will be trapped and die. I can’t imagine what all the electrical hookups look like.
SCOTUS has ruled against the vagueness of earlier vagrancy laws, which gave extremely broad latitude to cops for arresting someone. Their particular point was that laws, and charges, must be specific.
The notion that SCOTUS would allow people to camp, urinate, squat, etc... on public property as a 4th or 14th amendment right is nonsense. Look into case law on this.
For example, we all know Rudy Guiliani cleaned up NY City using exactly this tactic - people were arrested for specific crimes of urinating in public, vandalism, breaking NY housing and health codes, drugs, etc...
And that's exactly why places like SF and Portland have the problems they do - they have woke, "soros" DA's, who refuse to enforce the law and apply appropriate penalties.
“The notion that SCOTUS would allow people to camp, urinate, squat, etc... on public property as a 4th or 14th amendment right is nonsense.”
I did not say that SCOTUS allowed it, did I? In fact I specifically said they had not ruled on that particular question, did I not? But lower courts have. Which way the SCOTUS would rule on it if it came before them is something that you might think you can predict, but they might not go the way you expect, so I’ll wait to see how that plays out.
Also, mixing in things (like public urination, which everyone agrees is a crime) is just muddying the waters. The only real contested issue is whether they can be arrested simply for sleeping on public property.
“For example, we all know Rudy Guiliani cleaned up NY City using exactly this tactic - people were arrested for specific crimes of urinating in public, vandalism, breaking NY housing and health codes, drugs, etc... “
Ah yes, but I think if you look into that, you’ll find that while he used those laws as a pretense for arrest, he didn’t actually prosecute people for “vagrancy”, since that would invite a legal challenge to the vagrancy laws and then they would likely be struck down. Same thing when Chicago was using “loitering” laws to get gang bangers off the corner. They might use the loitering law as a basis for a stop, a search, and even an arrest, but they would not prosecute on the loitering charge so that the law which they knew was of questionable legality would be preserved.
“And that’s exactly why places like SF and Portland have the problems they do - they have woke, “soros” DA’s, who refuse to enforce the law and apply appropriate penalties.”
Well, there you have it. If they can solve the problem using the existing laws and existing penalties, then there’s no need to try to arrest people for simple vagrancy, or to send them to detention camps, and therefore no need to take actions that courts are likely to find unconstitutional. Just use the existing strategy that already works instead of one that probably won’t.
YES, you did. In you Post#45
Well, post #45 was one of your posts, not one of mine. But if you’re talking about the part of my post that you quoted in my post, I did not say that the SCOTUS had already ruled on it. I said:
“the Supreme Court is not going to allow you to arrest people just for “vagrancy” or send them to detention camps”
Which is not the same as saying they have already ruled on it. But I think it’s a pretty darn certain speculation as to how they would rule if the case came up before them. If you think you could get a ruling from SCOTUS that says, basically, “a law making it illegal to be homeless is constitutional”, then I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed.
Call it “Hillary Clinton Trailer Park” and then everything will be just fine.
So guess what? People will build slims instead. It's what third world have been doing since forever.
We used to be more advanced. We'll find the land. Then develop it. People will be able to afford to live in the residences on the land. But due to left wing politics in California, that's impossible.
*slums
Bidenville.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.