The US Supreme Court Thread - Post Roe v. Wade reversal edition

The idea is to have Black representation, not just Dem.

In this state, "Dem" does not necessarily mean " committed to eliminating antiBlack prejudice at every level, sniffing for it even when some would claim it's not there..." a level of wokeness that a lot of White people who are Dems do not display. In this environment, vigilance is a must.

 

True, but I expect the dems will nominate an AA candidate, right? I guess we'll see.

 

But that is my point. This type of person is such a small percentage of the homeless population that it shouldn’t even be mentioned. However, it is often brought up by people who don’t really want to address homelessness. Roadkit’s comment comes up all the time during discussions about how to address homelessness and it is almost always from people who want to step up sweeps and not fund housing.

The people that refuse housing almost always do it because “housing” often means shelters and while shelters mean a roof over their heads, it also means barracks style living, so little to no privacy abd there is a risk of their stuff being stolen, or if they have a lot of stuff, it means they have to find somewhere to put that stuff.

Or, if it is individual housing, there are a ton of requirements that come along with that, like being clean, that they view as being onerous or unrealistic.

 

That makes sense. But what's the prognosis for homeless people who accept housing only on condition that they will not promise to be clean? It's a rhetorical question, because I only know the answer for the two homeless people whom I personally knew. And in their case the prognosis was answer was that they would drink and expect somebody else would cover for them, if they didn't show up for work. Which is how they ended up homeless, because after a while employers would not hire them, their wives and friends got tired of cleaning up their messes, and then they were alone and without money.

But again, a sample size of two. Maybe they were very unusual cases.

 

Apropos Airbnb:

https://apple.news/A4WhfoIIdQYOlD99oiDZelg


In the past decade or so, the neighborhood has undergone as dizzying a process of gentrification as a place can. The median sales price of a condo nearly doubled; the median sales price of a single-family home more than tripled. The share of Black residents dropped from 60 percent to 40 percent; the share of white residents increased from 15 percent to 33 percent. The neighborhood became less socioeconomically diverse, home to fewer immigrants, fewer families, and more single people. It became less like the old New York and more like the new New York, which is to say more like Greenwich or Short Hills—a place where family wealth or a job on Wall Street are table stakes.

Airbnb is not responsible for Bed-Stuy’s transformation; the city’s extreme housing shortage and sky-high wealth inequality are the central, obvious culprits. But the “sharing economy’s” entry into real estate did not exactly help. An analysis earlier this year by the advocacy and data group Inside Airbnb and the publication Gothamist found that Bed-Stuy had the highest concentration of Airbnb listings of any neighborhood in the city. In one six-by-four-block area, there were 87 Airbnbs. That’s 87 apartments decorated in Ikea and auctioned off night after night to people with no investment in the neighborhood. That’s 87 families that could have lived in Bed-Stuy, moved to Bed-Stuy, stayed in Bed-Stuy.

Some Airbnbs, to be fair, were owned and inhabited by people who were defraying their own housing costs. But many of the city’s Airbnbs were full-time short-stay units. They were hotel rooms, not homes, owned by investors, not families. And there were 39,000 of them, displacing 100,000 New Yorkers, give or take.

 

Hmm. Good question, but Housing First is definitely one of the “preferred” options for treating homelessness. Getting a roof over someone’s headed is an important step to making them available to treatment. For one, you know where they are so can come visit them and, at least, offer to help them address their addiction needs.

There is also some evidence that providing housing to alcoholics and drug addicts reduces their overall costs as they are less likely to require police intervention and less likely to make emergency room visits. They may also reduce the amount of alcohol/drugs they consume.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/183666

 

In California?

I didn't know that

 

But political preference is not a protected class, so it's "easy" to pack 40% black voters in a Republican district.

 

Isn't that better than living in the street?

There has to be more than that, there is a reason many homeless want to live inside expensive big cities and not out in the cheaper country side

Connections to people and places they know, more access to cash and probably convenient access to services and products.

 

There are no services in the countryside. Cities use money to tackle the homeless problem. The countryside kicks them out, even drives them or puts them in buses, to get them out of their town and into the city.

 

I didn't see this post until now, sorry. I'm sure that's the idea. I mean, yeah, the Dems can nominate whoever they want to, but it would help to run a Black candidate in such a heavily Black district.

But it doesn't mean they'll win. The districting was drawn funny to begin with, which is why they have the change now. That part of Alabama is in the Black (soil) Belt. Plenty of majority Black towns and counties there. Selma's part of it, and so is Montgomery (the soil). Sewell's seat has been Dem and Black for some time. IIRC, a Black man held the seat before she got it. Conservatives probably figure they can eventually take both districts, and they may be right.

 

Yes.. The number of people that choose to be homeless as a lifestyle is exceedingly small compared to all of the other reasons people are homeless..

 

Not really. The homeless own so few things that having something stolen can have a bigger impact Not to mention the lack of privacy. Also, 24/7 shelters are fairly rare, or, at least, shelters where someone can stay inside 24/7, sleep in the same bed, etc, are pretty rare. A lot of shelters require overnighters to be out of the shelter by a certain time of day and don’t allow them back in until a certain time. Compare that to an encampment where they can have some degree of privacy inside a tent, can stay in a single place for weeks at a time, etc. as long as they can stay dry and warm being homeless “on the streets” can be better than shelter living.

There’s actually a decent per capita number of homeless that do live in the countryside. Aside from more services being available in cities, homelessness is just less visible in the countryside. For one, there is less people in the countryside, so less eyes to see the homeless. For two, the presence of clusters of trees and bushes and lack of roads means it is easier to make you camp “invisible”. For three, lower housing costs means larger homes and property, so someone who is experiencing homelessness can find it easier to find a friend that will let them
“couchsurf”, or that has an outbuilding they can live in, or a spot on their property they can park a trailer/camper/rv on, etc.

 

My experience (and I DO have experience, albeit limited to rural eastern NC) is that in rural communities, kinship ties are very strong, so almost* nobody sleeps in a car or the woods, they just move in with relatives. It’s not that but if a deal if the homeless is a single individual. But too often it’s families doubling up and being very overcrowded in a modest home.

*I heard of dozens of doubled up families but literally never heard of anyone sleeping in the woods, but I’ll throw in the “almost” to avoid pedantic arguments about absolutes.

 

I didn't know that California had drug testing requirements, isn't that what you replied to.

 

Unless California has outlawed it, it generally falls on the group running the housing operation to set the rules of who can and can’t be in their units. Many of the orgs have rules about being clean because it is a way to combat claims that the housing will increase crime in the area.

 

Was that because it literally wasn’t available, or because those released were blocked from the housing because of their criminal records?

 

I'm not surprised by this being in Denver. You can die from exposure if you are homeless in Denver. Not the case in coastal California.

 

I always open this thread thinking "what grifting has Clarence done now?"

 

Yeah. Kinda like the Dick Cheney thread. That one always got my hopes up.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/...na-gop-in-racial-gerrymandering-case-00121003

It is insane to me to believe that your argument can be yes we gerrymandered but it is for political gain and not racism.

I hope the conservative members of the court in the afterlife get to witness how poorly they are viewed in future history books.

 

They refuse to believe that the parties are split along racial lines, at least in South Carolina. They already decided racism doesn't exist any longer.