What's new
By:
Filters

Gavin Newscum orders homeless camps torn down across Cali

Alpine4x4

Red Skull Member
Joined
May 22, 2020
Member Number
1196
Messages
256
Loc
Central Washington
www.foxnews.com

Gov Newsom orders homeless encampments torn down across California: 'No more excuses'

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is ordering officials to begin overseeing the disestablishment and removal of homeless encampments across the state.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

Gov. Gavin Newsom is ordering California officials to dismantle homeless encampments across the state via an executive order.

Newsom announced the initiative on Thursday, with his office stating that the governor has ordered "state agencies and departments to adopt clear policies that urgently address homeless encampments while respecting the dignity and well-being of all Californians."

"This executive order directs state agencies to move urgently to address dangerous encampments while supporting and assisting the individuals living in them — and provides guidance for cities and counties to do the same," Newsom said in a statement.



Hollywood-California-homeless-07.jpg

A homeless encampment is seen on the sidewalk on Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles. (Toby Canham for Fox News Digital)
"The state has been hard at work to address this crisis on our streets," he added. "There are simply no more excuses. It’s time for everyone to do their part."

The order is expected to affect tens of thousands of homeless Californians who have set up long-term encampments and occupied entire city blocks with open-air drug use.

The governor's office has emphasized that individuals living in targeted encampments will be notified ahead of time.


Newsom-campaigns_02.jpg

California Gov. Gavin Newsom campaigns for President Biden at a county Democratic Party event in South Haven, Michigan. (Chris duMond/Shutterstock)
The statement from Newsom's office said that the executive order "directs state agencies and departments to adopt humane and dignified policies to urgently address encampments on state property, including by taking necessary and deliberate steps to notify and support the people inhabiting the encampment prior to removal."

The governor claims that this initiative was spurred by the Supreme Court's decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson last month, which found laws restricting sleeping in public areas did not violate the constitutional restriction against "cruel and unusual punishment."




Oakland-California-Homeless-Closed-Businesses_06.jpg

Homeless encampments line the streets in Oakland, California. (DWS for Fox News Digital)
The decision, which is expected to facilitate other anti-encampment policies in cities across the country, was made by a 6-to-3 vote along ideological lines.

Newsom had encouraged the Supreme Court to take up the case, claiming court decisions preventing the government from punishing vagrants occupying public spaces had created an "unsurmountable roadblock" to addressing the crisis.
Click to expand...

Too little too late douchebag. Too bad this crap has spread all up the west coast.
 
How many abandoned towns/buildings/hotels/homes are in California?

If you want to solve the homeless problem, the state can purchase the properties, and move them in there. Pay for basic utilities, sewer, water, heat, electricity. And leave it to the recently homed people to care for the property.

In the end, it would probably be cheaper than what they are doing now.

I believe there is a word for it... projects.... something like that.

Bam no more homelessness, they will have homes.
 
They just had a story here about a lady they asked to stop providing a homeless group with fresh drinking water.

Basically told her, thanks, but it's our job you are not authorized. :shaking:

EDIT: Story


Loading…

www.ktvu.com
 
KarlVP said:
How many abandoned towns/buildings/hotels/homes are in California?

If you want to solve the homeless problem, the state can purchase the properties, and move them in there. Pay for basic utilities, sewer, water, heat, electricity. And leave it to the recently homed people to care for the property.

In the end, it would probably be cheaper than what they are doing now.

I believe there is a word for it... projects.... something like that.

Bam no more homelessness, they will have homes.
Click to expand...
The issue is the homeless don’t fucking care. Give them something nice and they will pawn it or destroy it in short order.
 
xr-nut said:
elaborate please and thanks
Click to expand...
Came from a lawsuit from Oregon - first link I found without clickbaity shit:

EDIT: ignore the whiny lib tone (because NPR) of the article, I did :laughing:

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/28/nx-s1-4992010/supreme-court-homeless-punish-sleeping-encampments

The Supreme Court says cities can punish people for sleeping in public places​

UPDATED JUNE 28, 202411:15 AM ET


%2F1acc4d154a438b1783189b17d7ab%2Fap24105353378147.jpg

A homeless person walks near an elementary school in Grants Pass, Ore., on March 23. The rural city became the unlikely face of the nation's homelessness crisis when it asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold its anti-camping laws.
Jenny Kane/AP
In its biggest decision on homelessness in decades, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that cities can ban people from sleeping and camping in public places. The justices, in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, overturned lower court rulings that deemed it cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment to punish people for sleeping outside if they had nowhere else to go.
Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch said, “Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many.” But he said federal judges do not have any “special competence” to decide how cities should deal with this.
Sponsor Message


“The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy,” he wrote.
In a dissent, Justice Sotomayor said the decision focused only on the needs of cities but not the most vulnerable. She said sleep is a biological necessity, but this decision leaves a homeless person with “an impossible choice — either stay awake or be arrested.”
The court's decision is a win not only for the small Oregon city of Grants Pass, which brought the case, but also for dozens of Western localities that had urged the high court to grant them more enforcement powers as they grapple with record high rates of homelessness. They said the lower court rulings had tied their hands in trying to keep public spaces open and safe for everyone.
729771_sq-84b96a851467b26bec7141208ec9d138dab37a7c.jpg

LAW​

Supreme Court appears to side with an Oregon city's crackdown on homelessness​

But advocates for the unhoused say the decision won’t solve the bigger problem, and could make life much harder for the quarter of a million people living on streets, in parks and in their cars. “Where do people experiencing homelessness go if every community decides to punish them for their homelessness?” says Diane Yentel, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.
Today’s ruling only changes current law in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes California and eight other Western states where the bulk of America’s unhoused population lives. But it will also determine whether similar policies elsewhere are permissible; and it will almost certainly influence homelessness policy in cities around the country.
Sponsor Message


Cities complained they were hamstrung in managing a public safety crisis​

Grants Pass and other cities argued that lower court rulings fueled the spread of homeless encampments, endangering public health and safety. Those decisions did allow cities to restrict when and where people could sleep and even to shut down encampments – but they said cities first had to offer people adequate shelter.
That’s a challenge in many places that don’t have nearly enough shelter beds. In briefs filed by local officials, cities and town also expressed frustration that many unhoused people reject shelter when it is available; they may not want to go if a facility bans pets, for example, or prohibits drugs and alcohol.
Critics also said lower court rulings were ambiguous, making them unworkable in practice. Localities have faced dozens of lawsuits over the details of what’s allowed. And they argued that homelessness is a complex problem that requires balancing competing interests, something local officials are better equipped to do than the courts.
"We are trying to show there's respect for the public areas that we all need to have," Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison told NPR earlier this year. She wrote a legal brief on behalf of more than a dozen other cities. "We care for people, and we're engaging and being involved in the long-term solution for them."

The decision will not solve the larger problem of rising homelessness​

Attorneys for homeless people in Grants Pass argued that the city’s regulations were so sweeping, they effectively made it illegal for someone without a home to exist. To discourage sleeping in public spaces, the city banned the use of stoves and sleeping bags, pillows or other bedding. But Grants Pass has no public shelter, only a Christian mission that imposes various restrictions and requires people to attend religious service.
Sponsor Message


"It's sort of the bare minimum in what a just society should expect, is that you're not going to punish someone for something they have no ability to control," said Ed Johnson of the Oregon Law Center, which represents those who sued the city.
He also said saddling people with fines and a criminal record makes it even harder for them to eventually get into housing.
Johnson and other advocates say today’s decision won’t change the core problem behind rising homelessness: a severe housing shortage, and rents that have become unaffordable for a record half of all tenants. The only real solution, they say, is to create lots more housing people can afford – and that will take years.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Aisin said:
The issue is the homeless don’t fucking care. Give them something nice and they will pawn it or destroy it in short order.
Click to expand...
I guess I didn't expand on my thought enough.

I know this isn't a "homeless" problem, but with today's blue hair woke society running the population centers, at least they will be giving the "homeless" people the option to move in to subsidized housing.

Then, the police can do their job and clean up the streets, because the "homeless" have a place to go.

The gubbermint did this in the 40's through the 60's. The projects are part of the reason for the so called "white flight" where people who worked hard and had means, moved away from the shit holes.

Give these "homeless people" their shit holes. If they want to live in squalor carve out a place for them and keep them there. Those that CHOOSE to better themselves can move up and out.
 
KarlVP said:
I guess I didn't expand on my thought enough.

I know this isn't a "homeless" problem, but with today's blue hair woke society running the population centers, at least they will be giving the "homeless" people the option to move in to subsidized housing.

Then, the police can do their job and clean up the streets, because the "homeless" have a place to go.

The gubbermint did this in the 40's through the 60's. The projects are part of the reason for the so called "white flight" where people who worked hard and had means, moved away from the shit holes.

Give these "homeless people" their shit holes. If they want to live in squalor carve out a place for them and keep them there. Those that CHOOSE to better themselves can move up and out.
Click to expand...
As long as the state keeps giving them money for drugs, clean needles and food nobody will change. The only way to fix this is 5 gallon buckets of fentanyl on every street corner. The problem will sort itself out in a few weeks.
 
KarlVP said:
Some light reading on the subject. The powers that be got woke and tried to fix the problem in the 1970s, seems to me it was working fine.

en.wikipedia.org

Subsidized housing in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
They weren’t drug testing for housing in the 70s. There are places for these people to go but the issue is that they don’t want to stop doing drugs. Most housing out there for the homeless require drug tests in order to live in them.
 
Aisin said:
They weren’t drug testing for housing in the 70s. There are places for these people to go but the issue is that they don’t want to stop doing drugs. Most housing out there for the homeless require drug tests in order to live in them.
Click to expand...
yes there are very few "just homeless "peeps out there. most have some sort of drama and cant be settled down to drug test or normal homes ect...
 
chaplinfj60 said:
yes there are very few "just homeless "peeps out there. most have some sort of drama and cant be settled down to drug test or normal homes ect...
Click to expand...
Correct. I’d say less than 10% actually want to change their lives. Most don’t give a fuck what’s going on as long as they can get high on a daily basis. You’ll have to excuse Karl. His inner liberal was showing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh