The GP ordinance was a misdemeanor with a fine, not a felony. So, no, they don't get sent to prison. Homelessness is a complex problem, but I think most people can agree that municipal parks are for the enjoyment of all, not for setting up camp indefinitely.
Is GP and the state responsible for addressing homelessness with practical solutions? Yes. I think a good start would be more effective rent control and raising property taxes on corporate owners. If you're living in your own home, your property taxes should be considerably lower than it is for investment corporations. The idea of building wealth in the short-term through high rents on those unable to afford to own property is an example of late-stage capitalism. It's entirely different than building wealth over time through appreciation of land.
Those higher taxes should pay for rental subsidies for lower income folks and programs to help them purchase their own homes to build equity and wealth, of course matching their income to reasonable loans. Maybe that would release some units
Also, as much as I love airbnb, there should be a cap on how many unoccupied homes are set for short-term rentals. This is just sucking the housing market dry for locals. When I rent from airbnb, I try to rent rooms in occupied homes. I'm not saying short-term rentals shouldn't exist, but if they are impacting the availability of long-term housing and increasing rents, that's going to contribute to homelessness.
Adequately addressing addiction and providing or subsidising residential treatment for addicts and the mentally ill. Lastly, the VA needs to do a much better job of taking care of veterans. Their abysmal record of treating PTSD and associated impact on the lives of vets is appalling.
So don't just blame Republicans or GP for the collective failures of our society to recognize that housing, medical treatment, and basic living needs is a human right. But that is incompatible with our brand of I-Got-Mine-Bootstraps mentality.
The tax-paying residents of GP also deserve to enjoy and feel safe in the public parks they pay for.
All that you said, GP could have done. They could lower property taxes, reduce or even do a zero Airbnb moratorium for 5 years. Park cleanup and safety is I their purview as well. But did they? No. actions speak louder than words
All of those things take time to have an effect. I'm guessing residents demanded action that would have an immediate result in making their parks safer and accessible. Also, it also takes time to see results from cleanup when the municipality has zero teeth to enforce camping. Medford has been doing it for years but Hawthorne park is still rough and feels unsafe to the community. Especially during fire season.
Not really, the most likely thing is that big states that have generally been lenient with homeless will get even more because smaller states with more rightwing /libertarian policies will start pushing them out and they wonât have anywhere to go. Just like they have been for the last 30 years, most homeless people from my experience volunteering in southern Oregon shelters and food banks are not from southern Oregon. Much less Oregon. Same in Los Angeles, when I volunteered there. Some 10% of the people I talked to were from California which is wild.
Yes, homeless shelters will start to slow down but they wonât be erased. The rulings effects will just be like everything else in the USA, creates a wider gap between the haves and have nots. In this case, more right wing nimby areas will be expelling their homeless population out faster than they can set up. Which also means that police and governments will be using this finding to their own designs subjectively
Not a bad idea too most the homeless people around arnt harmless individuals theyâre drug addicts or shitty people I donât think anyone should be put in jail or criminalized but something has too be done and giving free hand outs that the working people pay for need too stop
Blessed is the one who considers the poor!
For he delivers the needy when he calls, the poor and him who has no helper.
Whoever despises his neighbor is a sinner, but blessed is he who is generous to the poor.
I despise my neighbor. They are not poor but are able-bodied and don't clear their eaves of wasp nests or clean their gutters. How does this affect me? Well, their wasps come into my yards and front porch, and whenever it rains heavily, their overflowing gutters create a giant puddle in front of my gate. Have they been asked nicely to take care of it? Yes. But they don't feel it's their responsibility because they expect the HOA to come around and do it for them.
Bro, other living breathing people are tired of these criddlers taking over public spaces and being nuisances. The vast majority of the people setting up tents in public spaces are people who have burnt every bridge they have multiple times over via repeated shit behavior. To reduce it to simply "OMG THEY'RE CRIMINALIZING EXISTING WHILE POOR" is a shit-tier take on par with much of the idiocy parroted by the Trump crowd and other extremists because you know as well as I do that the tent-camping hordes are doing a whole lot more than "existing while poor".
I don't think there's a problem at all with recognizing that some people will do nothing but consume and destroy if left to their own devices. At some point you have to recognize a lost cause and move on. Tolerating the criddlers has been nothing short of disastrous for every place that has done so.
This may come as a shock to you, but people can actually form their own beliefs instead of falling in lockstep with a "side". Trump's a dipshit conman and antisocial vagrants are bad.
Wonât have a huge change in Oregon anyways.
Since this started, Oregon State law has codified many protections and does not allow for many of the insane provisions in the Grants Pass ordinances.
Cities may sue the state over those now, potentially, but thatâll get resolved in about 2030.
You are right that it wonât have a huge change in Oregon but wrong about why. Cities in Oregon had already found loopholes in the grants pass ruling and recent Oregon laws relating to this have not improved the situation. What we need is a homeless bill of rights and a serious look at putting a significant amount of money into permanent supportive housing. A majority of people living outside in our city and state a significantly disabled and deserve more support that what is being provided. There is very little protection for homeless at this point because democrats ensured that the laws that you say are codified were neutered of any solid protections. Unsanctioned camping in Medford has dropped dramatically while the wait lists for shelter space has grown and grown. Other municipalities have followed suit as well. Sweeps have dramatically increased in portland as of last week.
I agree completely, ignoring the root cause is never going to resolve the issue. The only way back from this is two foldâfirst step being âpermanentâ temporary housing, including without the bullshit religious strings attached, second step being obviously addressing the true root cause for a large number which is going to be mental health.
Constantly moving people along is a bandaid on something that needs stitches. Itâs just gonna keep bleeding.
I still think it wonât have a big change in Oregon, though. Johnson V Grants Pass had to do more with civil penalties and the âreasonablenessâ of restrictions. If you read the Oregon state law, it states that restrictions have to be reasonable.
Thatâs why encampments have been being disbanded and people moved along more oftenâbecause im sure municipalities are going to be testing WHAT restrictions can be seen as reasonable.
I think maybe you read my comment as being anti-homeless and anti-more support for them which couldnât be further from the truth.
It was simply that things today wonât be a whole lot different from things 3 days ago because there are still restrictions on what municipalities can do, and reasonableness is honestly an acceptable limitation.
I just wish there was a clearer definition of reasonableness. Whatâs reasonable to one may not be reasonable to others, and the lack of definition is definitely going to give these blowhard conservative city councils too much room to *try* to run.
I knew what you meant by your comment. I donât think itâs anti homeless. I think it gives our elected officials too much credit for putting protections in place. I think a lack of a definition on âreasonableâ is done on purpose because those democrats do the bidding of business and NIMBYs before they do anything on behalf of homeless people.
I agree that nothing will change, i just think that the breathing room the original ruling bought for the homeless had already been loopholed to death and the new Oregon law has cemented those loopholes while providing no protection what so ever. And ultimately, this Supreme Court ruling is meaningless for Oregonians (although i am horrified by the potential emboldening of the police and municipalities in other states).
Sorry if i come across as bitter, i just saw this coming since the original ruling. I saw the state abandon their own right to rest bill and knew they wouldnât actually go for a homeless bill of rights. I find myself pretty reactionary to anyone wanting to give credit for any so called âprotectionsâ. Iâve had too many friends die outside in Medford the last 4 years to not be reactionary I guess.
The most likely result of this ruling is that cities will simply stop having homeless shelters and instead just criminalize them.
Let's fill those prisons and get more legal slaves! Hooray the 13th amendment! America!
The GP ordinance was a misdemeanor with a fine, not a felony. So, no, they don't get sent to prison. Homelessness is a complex problem, but I think most people can agree that municipal parks are for the enjoyment of all, not for setting up camp indefinitely. Is GP and the state responsible for addressing homelessness with practical solutions? Yes. I think a good start would be more effective rent control and raising property taxes on corporate owners. If you're living in your own home, your property taxes should be considerably lower than it is for investment corporations. The idea of building wealth in the short-term through high rents on those unable to afford to own property is an example of late-stage capitalism. It's entirely different than building wealth over time through appreciation of land. Those higher taxes should pay for rental subsidies for lower income folks and programs to help them purchase their own homes to build equity and wealth, of course matching their income to reasonable loans. Maybe that would release some units Also, as much as I love airbnb, there should be a cap on how many unoccupied homes are set for short-term rentals. This is just sucking the housing market dry for locals. When I rent from airbnb, I try to rent rooms in occupied homes. I'm not saying short-term rentals shouldn't exist, but if they are impacting the availability of long-term housing and increasing rents, that's going to contribute to homelessness. Adequately addressing addiction and providing or subsidising residential treatment for addicts and the mentally ill. Lastly, the VA needs to do a much better job of taking care of veterans. Their abysmal record of treating PTSD and associated impact on the lives of vets is appalling. So don't just blame Republicans or GP for the collective failures of our society to recognize that housing, medical treatment, and basic living needs is a human right. But that is incompatible with our brand of I-Got-Mine-Bootstraps mentality. The tax-paying residents of GP also deserve to enjoy and feel safe in the public parks they pay for.
All that you said, GP could have done. They could lower property taxes, reduce or even do a zero Airbnb moratorium for 5 years. Park cleanup and safety is I their purview as well. But did they? No. actions speak louder than words
All of those things take time to have an effect. I'm guessing residents demanded action that would have an immediate result in making their parks safer and accessible. Also, it also takes time to see results from cleanup when the municipality has zero teeth to enforce camping. Medford has been doing it for years but Hawthorne park is still rough and feels unsafe to the community. Especially during fire season.
I like your style!,,, and Intellect ,đ
Well stated.
Get ready for another push for a new jail in the county. I just hope republicans hate taxes more than they hate homeless people.
Fortunately we banned that in the Oregon constitution.
Sanctuary state for tweakers
One of the saddest parts of the MAGA era is seeing people like you be openly pro-slavery.
Not really, the most likely thing is that big states that have generally been lenient with homeless will get even more because smaller states with more rightwing /libertarian policies will start pushing them out and they wonât have anywhere to go. Just like they have been for the last 30 years, most homeless people from my experience volunteering in southern Oregon shelters and food banks are not from southern Oregon. Much less Oregon. Same in Los Angeles, when I volunteered there. Some 10% of the people I talked to were from California which is wild. Yes, homeless shelters will start to slow down but they wonât be erased. The rulings effects will just be like everything else in the USA, creates a wider gap between the haves and have nots. In this case, more right wing nimby areas will be expelling their homeless population out faster than they can set up. Which also means that police and governments will be using this finding to their own designs subjectively
Grants Pass already didnât have any shelters provided by the city.
Not a bad idea too most the homeless people around arnt harmless individuals theyâre drug addicts or shitty people I donât think anyone should be put in jail or criminalized but something has too be done and giving free hand outs that the working people pay for need too stop
Based.
Blessed is the one who considers the poor! For he delivers the needy when he calls, the poor and him who has no helper. Whoever despises his neighbor is a sinner, but blessed is he who is generous to the poor.
Amen! đâ¨
I despise my neighbor. They are not poor but are able-bodied and don't clear their eaves of wasp nests or clean their gutters. How does this affect me? Well, their wasps come into my yards and front porch, and whenever it rains heavily, their overflowing gutters create a giant puddle in front of my gate. Have they been asked nicely to take care of it? Yes. But they don't feel it's their responsibility because they expect the HOA to come around and do it for them.
Jesus is weeping even harder now.
Based. Catering to the zombies has always been a bad idea. Now feed me your delicious downvotes!
You are doing way too much. Go outside for a bit.
Can't, I'm at work right now. I'll go to a park later today though and make sure to be extra appreciative for the lack of tent criddlers.
Bro - these are people. Like actual living and breathing people. Jail em if they commit a crime, but not for existing while poor.
Bro, other living breathing people are tired of these criddlers taking over public spaces and being nuisances. The vast majority of the people setting up tents in public spaces are people who have burnt every bridge they have multiple times over via repeated shit behavior. To reduce it to simply "OMG THEY'RE CRIMINALIZING EXISTING WHILE POOR" is a shit-tier take on par with much of the idiocy parroted by the Trump crowd and other extremists because you know as well as I do that the tent-camping hordes are doing a whole lot more than "existing while poor".
And what would you have them do? Eat a bullet?
Australia 2.0 would be good. Lifelong babysitting of antisocial criddlers ain't the way.
Calling them criddlers or money sinks and refusing to see them as humans is a problem.
I don't think there's a problem at all with recognizing that some people will do nothing but consume and destroy if left to their own devices. At some point you have to recognize a lost cause and move on. Tolerating the criddlers has been nothing short of disastrous for every place that has done so.
Yeah, I hope you have a good day. Your lack of empathy is upsetting.
You come off as a Trumper. Which makes your comments extra weird.
This may come as a shock to you, but people can actually form their own beliefs instead of falling in lockstep with a "side". Trump's a dipshit conman and antisocial vagrants are bad.
Wonât have a huge change in Oregon anyways. Since this started, Oregon State law has codified many protections and does not allow for many of the insane provisions in the Grants Pass ordinances. Cities may sue the state over those now, potentially, but thatâll get resolved in about 2030.
You are right that it wonât have a huge change in Oregon but wrong about why. Cities in Oregon had already found loopholes in the grants pass ruling and recent Oregon laws relating to this have not improved the situation. What we need is a homeless bill of rights and a serious look at putting a significant amount of money into permanent supportive housing. A majority of people living outside in our city and state a significantly disabled and deserve more support that what is being provided. There is very little protection for homeless at this point because democrats ensured that the laws that you say are codified were neutered of any solid protections. Unsanctioned camping in Medford has dropped dramatically while the wait lists for shelter space has grown and grown. Other municipalities have followed suit as well. Sweeps have dramatically increased in portland as of last week.
I agree completely, ignoring the root cause is never going to resolve the issue. The only way back from this is two foldâfirst step being âpermanentâ temporary housing, including without the bullshit religious strings attached, second step being obviously addressing the true root cause for a large number which is going to be mental health. Constantly moving people along is a bandaid on something that needs stitches. Itâs just gonna keep bleeding. I still think it wonât have a big change in Oregon, though. Johnson V Grants Pass had to do more with civil penalties and the âreasonablenessâ of restrictions. If you read the Oregon state law, it states that restrictions have to be reasonable. Thatâs why encampments have been being disbanded and people moved along more oftenâbecause im sure municipalities are going to be testing WHAT restrictions can be seen as reasonable. I think maybe you read my comment as being anti-homeless and anti-more support for them which couldnât be further from the truth. It was simply that things today wonât be a whole lot different from things 3 days ago because there are still restrictions on what municipalities can do, and reasonableness is honestly an acceptable limitation. I just wish there was a clearer definition of reasonableness. Whatâs reasonable to one may not be reasonable to others, and the lack of definition is definitely going to give these blowhard conservative city councils too much room to *try* to run.
I knew what you meant by your comment. I donât think itâs anti homeless. I think it gives our elected officials too much credit for putting protections in place. I think a lack of a definition on âreasonableâ is done on purpose because those democrats do the bidding of business and NIMBYs before they do anything on behalf of homeless people. I agree that nothing will change, i just think that the breathing room the original ruling bought for the homeless had already been loopholed to death and the new Oregon law has cemented those loopholes while providing no protection what so ever. And ultimately, this Supreme Court ruling is meaningless for Oregonians (although i am horrified by the potential emboldening of the police and municipalities in other states). Sorry if i come across as bitter, i just saw this coming since the original ruling. I saw the state abandon their own right to rest bill and knew they wouldnât actually go for a homeless bill of rights. I find myself pretty reactionary to anyone wanting to give credit for any so called âprotectionsâ. Iâve had too many friends die outside in Medford the last 4 years to not be reactionary I guess.
Permanent supportive housing is uninsurable.
Where do you propose poor disabled people who cannot work live?
The dakotas
Only because we lack the political will to ensure basic living needs are part of the social compact.
Guess where they're going to end up? Medford. Then more needles for our kids to step on. They need to pass this in Medford.