Background
In 2018, the Ninth Circuit ruled in the Martin case that municipalities can’t impose criminal penalties against homeless people for sitting, sleeping, or lying on public property if they have no available shelter. Thus began the odyssey of Western States cities’ need to allow creation of homeless camps up and down the west coast.
In Bellingham a tent city appeared in front of city hall and ended up roaming the city from City Hall, to Civic Field, to a park on South Hill, to remnants on South Cornwall and D street. Meanwhile the drug cities were growing around Wal Mart and other parts of the city.
Even when the homeless areas were cleared there were, from the beginning, at least some open beds in shelters for residents to use. At times residents of these homeless sub-cities were going to shelters to shower and have a meal and then going back to the encampment to do their chemical of choice.
The clarification may just help city governments move forward in a positive way.
The Courts definition of Involuntary Homelessness was clarified according to a National Review article Here.
“Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit judges agreed that “a person is not involuntarily homeless if they have declined a specific offer of available shelter or otherwise have access to such shelter or the means to obtain it.”
The Martin Ruling referred to in the article in the National Review is ROBERT MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE, No. 15-35845 (9th Cir. 2019) ROBERT MARTIN V. CITY OF BOISE
EXCERPTS below show the ruling before the clarification…(2018-2019)
“In Majority: Turning to the merits, the panel held that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment precluded the enforcement of a statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless individuals with no access to alternative shelter. The panel held that, as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.
In Minority “Judge M. Smith further stated that the panel’s holding has already begun wreaking havoc on local governments, residents, and businesses throughout the circuit. Judge M. Smith stated that the panel’s reasoning will soon prevent local governments from enforcing a host of other public health and safety laws, such as those prohibiting public defecation and urination, and that the panel’s opinion shackles the hands of public officials trying to redress the serious societal concern of homelessness.”
Conclusion:
What do you think the Ninth Circuit was trying to do? Improve the lives of the homelessness by knocking down health and welfare ordinances Circuit wide or just creating new law using the Eighth amendment in a new and different way. Comments are welcome. Please keep them educational.
Vagrancy and vagrants are smoky defined in the dictionary. And that is what we are talking about.
Things weren’t like they are now when vagrancy was a crime.
Actually, this ruling does open up some possibilities. To get access to shelter, the indigents should have to undergo drug and alcohol testing. Fail the test, no shelter. Sleep on the street after failing a test, go to jail. Offer to bus jailed indigents to California if they want to get out of jail.
Do-gooder thoughtful Liberals pressured us back in the 80’s to close our mental institutions. We were to integrate the mentally ill into communities. Just be nice…. We started with group homes for them to live…now they are just on the streets and camping where ever sucking down social program funds and food stamps. That is what ‘being nice’ does to and for people. Where it should have been and should be now; No workie/no eatie. This is how culling works. They survive or they don’t. The globalists want the worthless eaters gone…are the homeless worthless eaters? Some are coasting on social programs. Some truly have mental issues. The more defined ruling will help sort out the difference. But system users will merely look for a new hiddy hole and keep working the system.
We all need fences and borders now… Enough with all the social program! Enough. Biden is giving every new illegal $2,200 a month of your tax fiat dollar.
Take the Covid Planned-demic… Homeless and illegals didn’t have to get jabbed. Just all the hard working people were threatened with loss of jobs if they didn’t get jabbed and now…Hey, we the gov’t didn’t do any silly mandates…lies, all lies. (P.S. it’s a bioweapon.) So…
Unless we start putting mental institutions back on line we will see no change for the better. Build your fence and top it with something sharp. Look like you have less than you do. Watch your back 40 if you have one!
Pray for CIC Trump…
If beds are available cities and counties must have the power to ticket those who claim homelessness. Many voluntary homeless don’t want rules of providers regarding drug use and sobriety. Also there’s a whole group of people who decide not to work and embrace the “Van Life”. We don’t owe them free parking on S. State Street on the main drag between Bellingham and Fairhaven.
Great article very informative. A city needs to have some back bone and appeal the decision or create temporary beds subject to drug testing.