[markdown]

Well they should, shouldn't they. Nobody should be able to monopolize and ruin the commons, whether or not they have a home.

The problem isn't the criminalizing of sleeping in public spaces, it's the lack of publicly funded shelters and publicly funded (incl. mental) healthcare for the homeless.

We should pay to give them a place to sleep, and punish them just like anyone else if they choose to set up camps in public spaces.

[XMPPwocky]

> ...and punish them just like anyone else if they choose to set up camps in public spaces.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Often applicable, but rarely quite so literally.

[adrianN]

You conveniently left out the part where your parent commenter wants to build shelters so that people don't have to sleep under bridges, whether rich or poor.

[lazyasciiart]

And they conveniently left out that that is exactly what the law has been ruled to say - if there are available suitable shelters then you can criminalize sleeping in public areas.

[ssivark]

> We should pay to give them a place to sleep, and punish them just like anyone else if they choose to set up camps in public spaces.

A little empathy would clarify that if there were any (holistically) better option, then homeless people would be preferring that to sleeping on the streets.

Firstly there needs to be "enough" available shelter, which accommodates the richly varied life situations of people. Secondly, it's no use having these shelters in the middle of nowhere such that their tenants are disconnected from a thriving economy and the rest of society.

The commons are, after all, for common use, and it is coercive to punish the homeless (often considered "riff raff") for "ruining the commons" if one's delicate (bourgeois) sensibilities are affected.

[mason55]

Which I believe is what the SCOTUS essentially ruled today. If the city doesn’t have adequate shelter you can’t just arrest people for existing.

[yowlingcat]

Well, semantics...SCOTUS refused to hear. But by refusing, it was an implicit support -- but I wouldn't call it a ruling. A ruling would be more along the lines of indelible -- this was more a filibuster.

[PopeDotNinja]

You'll change your mind as soon as you don't have a place to stay. Getting arrested because you were involuntarily evicted for your home is bullshit and tried to sleep somewhere is bullshit.

[0x8BADF00D]

Couldn’t you use your car? 24 hour fitness for showers? I see many people do that. They don’t bother anybody. They’re actually trying to work very hard, it’s just the property values are so costly, that they end up homeless in their car.

The homeless that are on the street are typically very hostile and going through drug withdrawal. It can become a public safety issue then.

[PopeDotNinja]

A car isn't an option for everyone. I personally don't have a car. And 10 years ago when I was homeless, I couldn't afford to keep the car I had; it got towed because I couldn't afford to pay for the registration. On a more practical note, I was too big to sleep in my car anyway.

[dhuramas]

Sleeping in the car is also illegal in a growing number of places[1]

[1]: https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/10-facts-homelessness-2014

[aptwebapps]

If you'll hold off on the criminalization until all the shelters are built, maybe, but the former is easier than the latter and not everyone is equally invested in the two endeavors.

[Broken_Hippo]

And not just shelters. Proper shelters.

Shelters without forced religious services. Without forced NA/AA. Shelters that will allow families to stay together. Shelters that don't take away walkers and oxygen tanks due to being "weapons". Shelters that are safe, for everyone, especially if you are trans. Ones that allow folks to actually improve their life instead of waiting hours for food and mandatory classes. Bonus points if they provide for pets as well: I know of at least one woman that stayed with an abusive partner because of this. Her only friend in the country (!) was her dog. (He died while she was pregnant, so she got a better life, but no dog).

It is unfortunate that the shelters we do have are rarely good enough.

[steve_taylor]

If such shelters existed in my city, I’d seriously consider becoming homeless for a while to save for a deposit on a home loan faster than I otherwise would while paying rent.

[Broken_Hippo]

It doesn't really mean these would be comfortable places - it would still just be shelter. The stuff I listed are just basic things I think we should do for people, regardless of situations. Folks shouldn't suffer due to misfortune.

I don't think society is at a place to do such a thing, but I'd personally like to see everyone getting the option of low-cost to free basic housing. A single person would minimally get a private room and bathroom: More likely a proper studio with a small kitchen. Clean, secure, and functional. Easy-to-clean and easy-to-replace surfaces and appliances. Professional cleaning 2-4 times a year, mandatory.

Of course, I think we should only have shelters for folks that have temporary emergencies and homes for everyone else. People will still need shelter from time to time even in a more perfect world - fires, floods, abuse, money mistakes, and so on happen.

This is all a dream and I don't think we'll get to this point soon enough.

[jachee]

> We should pay to give them a place to sleep, and punish them just like anyone else if they choose to set up camps in public spaces.

Good luck with the former. The NIMBYs will fight it tooth and nail, every millimeter of the way.

[Broken_Hippo]

Then elect better legislators to reign them in or will at least pass laws that will disallow that sort of thing.