In reply to SFAtty.

Don’t forget that the Supreme Court is now highly political, so common sense is that they would leverage this opportunity to suffocate and crowd every single liberal city in the US with zombies.

In reply to scottf.

It’s not only “Breed’s SF” that underinvests… it’s SF at large, for ages, predating the current mayor. It’s the individuals and groups who stop affordable housing and shelters from going up in their neighborhoods, who are not the mayor, nor the previous mayor, etc.

In reply to Morticia.

“We offer shelter – and if they choose to reject the offer, they no longer have the right to block the sidewalks”

If that were true, the lawsuit would not exist. There would be nothing for SCOTUS to overturn.

The Breed administration is fighting the case specifically for the right to hassle people and take their stuff *without* a specific offer of shelter (of any quality).

The truth is, there is a long waitlist for shelter because Breed’s SF underinvests in actual solutions. So the city plays a game where it says, “Go over here and you can be added to the waitlist for a shelter bed.” It’s not a real offer, and if the unhoused person falls for it, as soon as they leave, their stuff is trashed. People learn that these are bullshit offers, and then Mayor Breed will tell the press that such-and-such a percent “refused shelter.” But usually there was no real shelter on offer, even a crappy one.

It should be obvious this strategy will never solve homelessness citywide, only move people from one block to another like a hot potato. But that’s what SF is leaning on the far-right dominated stolen Supreme Court to allow it to keep doing. It makes no sense. Legal or not, sweeps offer only an illusion of progress.

The Nutty Ninth strikes again!

I’d put the odds of the Supreme Court reversing the Grant’s Pass decision at about 99.99%. So there will be no constitutional right to camp out on public property (duh). The case should be argued in April and a ruling should come by June. Then SF will again be free to enforce laws against such conduct – the big question is will it do so?

In reply to Morticia.

Hi Morticia — 

The reason it took so long for your comment to be approved is because I was to ill to log onto the computer for the last 72 hours. Please, pretty please, think twice before claiming some manner of conspiracy from keeping you from writing a comment on this website.

Yours,

JE

If you are homeless, you don’t get to own more proper than you can carry with you. In order to own property you must have a place to put it, otherwise you cant maintain possession and it’s legally abandoned

I just lost my car to aggressive ticketing and abuse from city And county employees that have nothing better to do than misuse their psuedo authority of a city entity to abuse and mistreat human beings while working .
This is. Not only unlawfully but imorrale . Does anyone give a damn about me and my situation No they don’t . Everything to date regarding homelessness in California on either side of the cojn is about power and big business. So good luck with this story and how good it sounds . No one gives a damn about us period . Thank you for your time in this matter.

Why have we allowed ourselves to be nudged into this judge mandated, back door approach to socialism? It doesn’t even work. We have become a national, even international laughing stock, not to mention a constant difficulty, or even danger, for those of us who actually live here. Look at the harm it has been doing to San Francisco for many years. Towns and cities across the country have had vagrancy laws for generations. I imagine San Francisco’s are still on the books. Why can’t we enforce them? I have no problem with nonprofits, charities, churches, volunteer groups, or even individuals who want to help people on the streets, but why should the ordinary citizen, the taxpayer, be forced to pay for it whether they want to or not? Aren’t there enough problems? As Willie Brown once said years ago, not everybody can live in San Francisco. I know that sounds cold and unfeeling to some, but I doubt Brown meant it that way. He was merely stating a fact. It’s reality. By denying it, what have we got now? A city that looks, in certain areas, positively Third World, or worse. More like some grim, dystopian film. There are neighborhoods I don’t even want to go into, even during the day! The encounters I have even in my own, comparatively nice neighborhood are disturbing and have me worried. San Francisco didn’t used to be like that!

tl;dr: West Coast tax payers will continue to foot the bill for vagrants from around the country while navigating around their tents, needles, and effluents along with our bicycles and other contents of our garages and cars.

Dolores Park was used as a camp site after the 1906 earthquake. Why not establish acceptable camping sites throughout the city? Why shouldn’t we be using park space rather than sidewalks? There would be dedicated bathrooms and it could be low cost-versions of the navigation centers if we use donated tents. In Europe people donate tents to refugee camps. I’ve got several old tents that are going unused. Honestly it feels like it wouldn’t be any worse or more costly than shouldn’t folks from corner to corner.

so tired of tents, encampments, mental health emergencies outside the front doorstep of my home…USA sucks, this country is so ass backwards and unable to self govern or improve itself. Its a f#cking global embarisment and an insult to residents.

“Nothing about the Court’s order today requires San Francisco to modify its compassionate services-first approach to homelessness”
The city is being disingenuous if they’re counting this as a win. The whole reason to contest the ruling was that the city felt it hamstrung their efforts to sweep encampments. If they truly were doing things by the book and offered housing to everybody affected there would be no problem, but that’s obviously not what they want to do.

Kelly,

Ever go camping for more than one night ?

Some of these poor people are forced to change spots several times daily.

The City should construct several Permanent camps capable of ‘housing’ a couple of thousand people each and don’t tell me we can’t do it.

I watched Walter Wong put together tents (it rained like hell) and with power and water and stages and toilets … constructed entire thing in a single day for 4,000 people for Matt Gonzalez’s Election Night.

We have the space with water and sewage hookups on Treasure Island and on the two City Golf Courses (Harding – presently controlled by Saudi Arabia’s own MSB and Lincoln – directly adjoins the huge VA Medical Center at Land’s End) …

My point is that these locations are far from Downtown San Francisco and its surrounding neighborhoods which presently take the brunt of 3 or 4 thousand people looking for a place to take their next dump.

We have plenty of large mobile toilet and shower facilities kept in storage by Breed.

24 of 36 of those units see no use at all.

Where you gonna put em when you keep moving the encampments around.

How about on Permanent Campgrounds on Treasure Island and only half (you can get by with 9 holes for an Emergency, right guys?) … half of two Golf Courses.

If Wong can accommodate 4,000 in a day the City can do it in a week.

Not a single City Leader will endorse these moves that are possible right now for Free.

Apparently they’re content moving them from one Voter/Taxpayer doorway to the next.

Anyone know if Walter Wong’s free to help ?

Interesting. But this ruling is actually in favor of San Francisco, as we already are the very most compassionate city in the state, if not the nation. We offer people shelter, services, and help – and the courts have now confirmed the reality that if folks do not wish to take the offer of shelter, they no longer have the right to camp out on our sidewalks. (Please note: This does *not* say that if we do not offer each homeless individual their own free one-bedroom apartment, they are allowed to camp. It does *not* say that if they are not offered shelter “they deem favorable” then they can remain – it says, “Shelter.” Period.) We offer shelter – and if they choose to reject the offer, they no longer have the right to block the sidewalks, consume illegal narcotics, and trash the neighborhoods. I consider this a win.