Martin v. Boise does not address camping

Martin v. Boise (MvB) has been in the news lately. Here’s the ruling.

Sleep is an “involuntary” human need. When adequate shelter space wasn’t available for the homeless, Boise couldn’t cite someone for sleeping on public property, and sleeping in a blanket was just sleeping.

MvB didn’t address camping, i.e. setting up a temporary household. This created confusion for both the homeless and local jurisdictions.

The Harvard Law Review made the following comments on MvB:

“…create(s) chaos for governments and people.”

“…neither protected homeless nor precluded democratic politics.”

“…the ruling is narrow enough (to be) insignificant for homeless people.”

Homeless campers fare better in litigation where the possibility of the courts awarding financial damages (for bulldozing?) incentivises a city (Chico?) to compromise (provide campsites?).

If the legality of homeless camping wasn’t decided in MvB, why is the Enterprise-Record (ER) reporting that it did? To wit: “…a jurisdiction cannot prevent people from camping on public spaces unless there are enough available shelter spaces.”

Read MvB for yourself; front to back, inside out. Turn it upside down and spank it. It doesn’t matter. It can’t cry out what isn’t there.

I’ve previously communicated with Mike Wolcott, the ER’s editor, and I found him thoughtful with a sense of humor. And I’d like to have faith that, at least with our local paper, the news is fact and opinion stays in the editorials. So what did I miss, MIke? Enlighten me. What makes your statements “news” and not just opinion?

— Peter Bridge, Glenn