The Supreme Court effectively ruling that a human being cannot sleep absent having housing is one of the cruelest precedents set by a modern, developed nation. Beyond being dystopian, it is Kafkaesque in its total disregard for the human condition when it is at its most desperate. California’s “look how progressive we are” charade is only slightly less objectionable, if not massively more hypocritical. The United States’ war against the unhoused is an economic pogrom, shameful and monstrously immoral. And, unfortunately, I agree that it is just going to get worse.
I know I'm not well-versed on the legal issues in this case, but that said, this does not seem like an accurate description of the ruling:
"The Supreme Court effectively ruling that a human being cannot sleep absent having housing"
Hopefully someone educates me if I'm wrong here, but my understanding is that you don't have to have as many shelter beds as homeless people in your particular locality before clearing people from a public space.
Which seems entirely reasonable, because there needs to be some kind of rules about how public spaces are used. You can't have people sleeping in the ambulance entrance of the hospital, for example. Or maybe you can - the specifics "wheres" and "where nots" are up to each locality. But the idea that anybody can sleep anywhere if the shelter count dips too low was not tenable, neither here nor in any other developed country.
It seems like the real kindling that lets this fire burn is a lack of cheap housing, combined with the fuel of permissive attitudes about drug addiction. Developed countries (and even areas of the US) which are better than California on homelessness are handling one or both of those two things better. Laws on where exactly you can sleep have little to do with it and may well be stricter in many of the countries you're thinking of.
Ask any housing case manager: it is nearly impossible to find an apartment for someone with a voucher. Many units that are available became empty when owners moved other low income tenants out to bring units up to Section 8 standards, creating new unhoused households. It’s a vicious cycle that can only be cured by more supply of housing.
"The Supreme Court has ruled that cities are not required to offer shelter before sweeping encampments"
This does not acknowledge that the status quo in California has been even when shelter is offered, no homeless person can be compelled to go to the shelter unless there are enough beds for the entire homeless population in an area. Now it is sufficient to offer shelter to somebody camping on a sidewalk or park and if they decline the offer, they can be compelled to leave.
The Supreme Court effectively ruling that a human being cannot sleep absent having housing is one of the cruelest precedents set by a modern, developed nation. Beyond being dystopian, it is Kafkaesque in its total disregard for the human condition when it is at its most desperate. California’s “look how progressive we are” charade is only slightly less objectionable, if not massively more hypocritical. The United States’ war against the unhoused is an economic pogrom, shameful and monstrously immoral. And, unfortunately, I agree that it is just going to get worse.
I know I'm not well-versed on the legal issues in this case, but that said, this does not seem like an accurate description of the ruling:
"The Supreme Court effectively ruling that a human being cannot sleep absent having housing"
Hopefully someone educates me if I'm wrong here, but my understanding is that you don't have to have as many shelter beds as homeless people in your particular locality before clearing people from a public space.
Which seems entirely reasonable, because there needs to be some kind of rules about how public spaces are used. You can't have people sleeping in the ambulance entrance of the hospital, for example. Or maybe you can - the specifics "wheres" and "where nots" are up to each locality. But the idea that anybody can sleep anywhere if the shelter count dips too low was not tenable, neither here nor in any other developed country.
It seems like the real kindling that lets this fire burn is a lack of cheap housing, combined with the fuel of permissive attitudes about drug addiction. Developed countries (and even areas of the US) which are better than California on homelessness are handling one or both of those two things better. Laws on where exactly you can sleep have little to do with it and may well be stricter in many of the countries you're thinking of.
Ask any housing case manager: it is nearly impossible to find an apartment for someone with a voucher. Many units that are available became empty when owners moved other low income tenants out to bring units up to Section 8 standards, creating new unhoused households. It’s a vicious cycle that can only be cured by more supply of housing.
And most people who would qualify don't even get Section 8 vouchers! They're not an entitlement like SNAP or Social Security.
"The Supreme Court has ruled that cities are not required to offer shelter before sweeping encampments"
This does not acknowledge that the status quo in California has been even when shelter is offered, no homeless person can be compelled to go to the shelter unless there are enough beds for the entire homeless population in an area. Now it is sufficient to offer shelter to somebody camping on a sidewalk or park and if they decline the offer, they can be compelled to leave.