Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
The case is considered the most significant to come before the high court in decades on homelessness, which is reaching record levels in the United States.
Given these people have nowhere to go why not set aside some public land that allows long term encampments or maybe if it’s a concern about the safety of these encampments, the government could acquire an empty office building and retrofit it with modest accommodations for these peoples.
Or you could just admit it’s not about helping these people it’s about making them go away.
Those are both reasonable solutions and I’m not arguing against them. I just pointed out that this fight isn’t about banning homeless people from sleeping outside. It’s more nuanced than that.
Removed by mod
Given these people have nowhere to go why not set aside some public land that allows long term encampments or maybe if it’s a concern about the safety of these encampments, the government could acquire an empty office building and retrofit it with modest accommodations for these peoples.
Or you could just admit it’s not about helping these people it’s about making them go away.
Those are both reasonable solutions and I’m not arguing against them. I just pointed out that this fight isn’t about banning homeless people from sleeping outside. It’s more nuanced than that.
It is sleeping outdoors. There is no mention of it only applying to long term encampments.