this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
175 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3088 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The article and ruling isn’t about Portland, it’s about Grants Pass.

At the center of the case is Grants Pass, a city of roughly 40,000 in southern Oregon with ordinances that bar camping or sleeping on public property or in city parks. The city's rules define "campsite" as "any place where bedding, sleeping bag, or other material used for bedding purposes, or any stove or fire is placed."

As far as I can find their ordinance has no such exceptions.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Thanks to the Supreme Court, it's no longer Grants Pass, each municipality can set their own rules and in Oregon, it's already been decided at the State level.

https://www.orcities.org/resources/reference/homeless-solutions/homelessness-public-space

"HB 3115 requires that any city or county law regulating the acts of sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry outside on public property must be “objectively reasonable” based on the totality of the circumstances as applied to all stakeholders, including persons experiencing homelessness. What is objectively reasonable may look different in different communities.

The bill retains cities’ ability to enact reasonable time, place and manner regulations, aiming to preserve the ability of cities to manage public spaces effectively for the benefit of an entire community."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You seem to be overlooking that SCOTUS specifically ruled that it is constitutional to charge homeless people $300 for falling asleep outside with a blanket, which is what the thread was about.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I get it, what I'm saying is Oregon passed HB 3115 in response to policies like those in Grants Pass.

So even though the Supreme Court is allowing it, State Law supercedes it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That doesn’t really do much for the other 49 states + DC or say anything meaningful about the decision itself.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

This is true, but because Grants Pass is subject to Oregon law, it's a little different for them.

What will be interesting to see is how big cities deal with the ruling. San Francisco, LA, Seattle, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia...

Badically any city big enough where you don't have to mention the state. :)