@farbel no, it's emphasized that there is no proposed punishment at all in this ordinance.
That's so important here.
Emphatically, the ordinance provides that officials will provide help and ask the people to move along.
@farbel exactly.
Not a criminalization. They're asked to move along.
@volkris Can we at least agree that what the city of Grants Pass is doing is morally wrong, regardless of statute?
@farbel the problem is that we disagree about what the city is doing.
How can we agree on a moral judgment about what the city is doing if we don't agree about what that is?
Personally, I'm actually not interested in moralizing about how a distant city manages its own property. I'm not involved in that process, nor is it really any of my business.
I AM interested in the misinformation regarding the Supreme Court going around that impacts the whole country, though.
As a general rule, though, I'll say I support the democratic processes that lead to city management policies.
@volkris I guess the evidence I provided wasn't enough. OK
@volkris The 9th Circuit found that the city's ordinance violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment because it imposes criminal penalties for homeless people sleeping outside or on public property when they do not have access to a shelter.
@farbel kind of, but in any case, that's exactly why SCOTUS is reviewing this case, because the 9th Circuit is probably wrong.
So we can see this in the application for cert:
"Grants Pass enforces these ordinances through civil citations, not through criminal fines or jail terms."
@volkris So what is the proposed punishment, then? Dismantling their camps and stealing their stuff?