The devil is in the details. You have to define homelessness first. Would a ban on that even be legal? And what is the state doing to prevent it and/or what are the penalties for violators? There is certainly a chance that this inches painfully close to keeping people concentrated, in a camp, which should, in a sane world, weigh heavily against such a ban. But if a ban meant anybody on the street gets put in an apartment, given medical care including therapy, and then given a chance to become a productive member of society within their means, then it wouldn’t be imprisonment. That’s the Finnish solution to the problem, which benefits from having a smaller population in the country overall and a smaller percentage of homeless people than, say, Los Angeles.
If we’re talking the US, it’s routine for municipalities to effectively ban homelessness. The penalties are usually a visit to jail & fines. Yes, fines, for people who can’t afford homes. The supreme court also recently ruled that municipalities can do this even if there’s not enough shelter space for them. It’s not really an exaggeration to say that US attitudes & policies towards homeless people are genocidal.
A nearby town (in Canada) has some issues with an encampment of tenters on the city’s land. The city want to evict them to make a new transit hub and have enacted bylaws trying to make it illegal to tent. They’ve spend outrageous sums on police and lawyers trying to kick them out. It went to court and a judge ruled that it violated Canadian charter of rights to be evicted without anywhere to go. So the city spent like $1.7 million on bs and still needs to provide alternative site or housing.
The devil is in the details. You have to define homelessness first. Would a ban on that even be legal? And what is the state doing to prevent it and/or what are the penalties for violators? There is certainly a chance that this inches painfully close to keeping people concentrated, in a camp, which should, in a sane world, weigh heavily against such a ban. But if a ban meant anybody on the street gets put in an apartment, given medical care including therapy, and then given a chance to become a productive member of society within their means, then it wouldn’t be imprisonment. That’s the Finnish solution to the problem, which benefits from having a smaller population in the country overall and a smaller percentage of homeless people than, say, Los Angeles.
If we’re talking the US, it’s routine for municipalities to effectively ban homelessness. The penalties are usually a visit to jail & fines. Yes, fines, for people who can’t afford homes. The supreme court also recently ruled that municipalities can do this even if there’s not enough shelter space for them. It’s not really an exaggeration to say that US attitudes & policies towards homeless people are genocidal.
A nearby town (in Canada) has some issues with an encampment of tenters on the city’s land. The city want to evict them to make a new transit hub and have enacted bylaws trying to make it illegal to tent. They’ve spend outrageous sums on police and lawyers trying to kick them out. It went to court and a judge ruled that it violated Canadian charter of rights to be evicted without anywhere to go. So the city spent like $1.7 million on bs and still needs to provide alternative site or housing.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/kitchener/article/documents-show-how-much-region-of-waterloo-spent-to-fight-for-encampment-bylaw/