624
submitted 1 month ago by gedaliyah@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The Oregon case decided Friday is the most significant to come before the high court in decades on the issue and comes as a rising number of people in the U.S. are without a permanent place to live.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Bwaz@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

So. Unless you have permission to be on someone's private real estate, to you're now forbidden to sleep. Nothing dystopian about that.

[-] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago

Nonsense. I'm sure someone with a home and a job will be allowed to take a carnap on the quad of their public university. It's only illegal to do it when you have to.

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

And imma keep advocating for kicking those selfrighteous fuckwads off their collective benches so they can get a more upclose view of their shit

[-] PNW_Doug@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

You can predict the outcome of this court's decisions with two questions:
A: Will it cause chaos?

B: Is it cruel?

They seem to feel it's bonus points if the answer to both is yes.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago
[-] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago

Can we get a class action lawsuit to sue for housing? Isn't this almost entrapment like if the government doesn't supply space for people to sleep but the population is still growing and the border isn't completely sealed(not my solution I want) then shouldn't the government be forced to build new homes or at least bunkhouses?

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

I'd think that for a blanket no-homelessness policy to be even reasonably humane, each person would need a right of address, even a 50 sqft. parcel of public land in/by the town of choosing which they can call their domicile.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Could just show up to your town's zoning board meetings and keep hammering them each and every time they turn down a residential permit application

[-] meleecrits@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[-] Spazz@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 1 month ago

Fucking conservatives

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

state's rights is some fake ass bullshit

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Think I will donate some money and my homemade scarfs to a shelter this weekend. Clearly our Christian government isnt going to help guess it is up to us atheists.

[-] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago

I mean the "justification" used by the Christians who vote for this kind of thing is that it would be under for the government to take money from people to help others, and it's up to each individual with money to give freely to support the poor, or whatever.

That's what they say out loud, anyway. So they can blame atheists for not giving freely. Never mind that they tend to give less, but

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DancingBear@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago

It smaller towns the homeless could protest this by just camping out in Central Park openly. If they arrest them all the jails will fill up pretty quickly and the costs would be higher than if you paid for all of their rent

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
624 points (99.7% liked)

News

22470 readers
4901 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS