Let cities control hazardous homeless camps
Until you have witnessed a sprawling homeless encampment, it’s hard to imagine what all the fuss is about.
Why not let people camp where they want? Why are other people frustrated and fearful because of makeshift encampments?
In the past decade, I have witnessed how liberal cities, where leaders thought they were being kind, have allowed so-called public camping to take over once beautiful downtowns and parks.
As an Oregon native, I often visit my home state. I love it. The state’s natural beauty is hard to beat.
That’s why it has been appalling to see the rise of homelessness and how encampments have hurt neighborhoods, parks and downtowns in cities like Portland and Salem.
Health and fire hazards, rampant substance use
These aren’t neat campsites. They often are littered with large piles of trash, which are both health and fire hazards. There appears to be no effort to keep the areas clean, and there’s a complete disregard for other people who may want to use these public spaces.
Substance use is also rampant among this population, and Oregon’s recent failed experiment with decriminalizing hard drugs didn’t help.
The camps – and city officials’ unwillingness to do anything about it – are driving businesses and residents out of cities they once loved.
That’s why I was pleased that a case out of Grants Pass, Oregon, made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments recently. Depending on how the court rules, cities could regain control over how they address this destructive phenomenon.
More than 256,000 people in the United States are both homeless and unsheltered, living on streets, in parks or in vehicles parked on city streets.
About half of them live in California, so it’s not just an Oregon problem. Cities along the West Coast, including Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, have among the highest rates of homelessness.
But the cold and snowy northeastern state of Vermont, the home of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, has the secondhighest rate of homelessness in the nation. Sunny and warm Florida, in contrast, has a homeless rate that’s more than two-thirds lower than that of California, Oregon and Vermont.
That’s not a coincidence. The cities and states with large homeless populations are governed by liberals who allowed the situation to get this bad.
Grants Pass, a comparatively small town with a population of 40,000, had tried to get its own homelessness problem under control, with efforts that included a crackdown on public camping.
But Grants Pass, like other cities, kept running into roadblocks in the courts that prevented it from enforcing local laws.
Lower courts, including the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, found it was cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment to fine or jail someone for sleeping on public land when there isn’t adequate shelter available. That’s a hard thing to define, however.
Some people who are homeless turn down living in shelters, preferring to stay outside.
Bipartisan support for enforcing policies on homelessness
The liberals on the Supreme Court court appeared to side with advocates for the unhoused.
Justice Elena Kagan said, “Sleeping is a biological necessity. It’s sort of like breathing . ... But presumably you would not think that it’s OK to criminalize breathing in public.”
Kagan clearly doesn’t understand the realities of homeless camps. It isn’t just sleeping going on – in many cases, people are living there 24/7. That’s a big difference in terms of safety and sanitation in public places.
While the court seemed split along ideological lines, the case has brought together bipartisan support for enforcing policies on homelessness.
Interestingly, California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote an amicus brief in support of Grants Pass, saying his state’s hands are tied against commonsense policies. Twenty conservative-led states, including Idaho and Montana, also signed on to a brief, and many others registered their support as well. Newsom’s brief says:
“While states, cities, and counties work on long-term approaches to help with these crises, they need the flexibility to also address immediate threats to health and safety in public places − both to individuals living in unsafe encampments and other members of the public impacted by them.”
What else can cities like Grants Pass do to keep these public spaces safe for everyone?
From the oral arguments, it seems the conservative majority on the court is empathetic with Grants Pass. They sought to distinguish between someone’s status (not punishable) and their conduct (which can be).
Justice Neil Gorsuch brought up the example of whether urinating or defecating in public if no public bathrooms are available can be protected by the Eighth Amendment.
Surely, that’s something no city should have to allow.
All these questions point to how difficult it is for communities to manage homelessness. Yet, they are in the best position to do so – not judges who aren’t as close to the situation.
“There was no appetite to insert judges as ‘superintendents’ of municipal homeless policies,” Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said on social media. “That’s a good thing and it means 9th Circuit’s expansive and novel 8th Amendment ruling will be reversed.”
In other words, Grants Pass could get back to tackling the issue as it sees fit.
We let states and cities enact laws that govern all sorts of human behavior to keep our society functioning well for everyone.
Managing homelessness should be no different.