Where should they go?
The Columbian editorially has asked that question in the past regarding unhoused people, and it remains relevant in the wake of a decision last week from the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court said that municipalities may enforce ordinances against sleeping in public spaces. The case, Grants Pass v. Johnson, overturned a California appeals court decision that found such laws amount to cruel and unusual punishment when shelter space is lacking.
The ruling attempts to parse a difficult question. The conservative justices who comprised the majority declined to apply the Eighth Amendment, which reads in its entirety, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The liberal justices dissented, writing that “sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime.”
For the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. A handful of federal judges cannot begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness.”
Legalese aside, the importance of the ruling is that municipalities now have broader leeway for dealing with homelessness in their communities. Sara Bristol, mayor of Grants Pass, the Southern Oregon city where the case originated, said: “This lawsuit was about whether cities have a right to enforce camping restrictions in public spaces, and I’m relieved that Grants Pass will be able to reclaim our city parks for recreation.”
That could be echoed in Vancouver and throughout Clark County. City officials in November issued an emergency declaration regarding homelessness, allowing them to access funding and designate up to 48 acres of public property as closed to camping. Five areas in the city have been closed to camping this year.
A statement from the city said the Supreme Court ruling “does not change the urgency surrounding the issues related to homelessness or our continued work on this humanitarian crisis. Vancouver’s existing ordinances and related emergency orders remain fully valid and enforceable. … This underscores the importance of continued thoughtful discussion on regulating the livability impacts of unsheltered homelessness in our community.”
While the issue remains complex, livability for the greatest number of residents is the primary goal. And homeless encampments along roadways or in other public spaces diminish the quality of life throughout a community. It is a matter of public health and public safety more than mere unsightliness, and local governments that are elected to represent the public should have the right to enhance that health and safety. That is the crux of the Supreme Court ruling, recognizing that the hands of governments have been tied by judicial restrictions in recent years.
And yet the ruling does not answer the most important question: Where should unhoused people go? Disbanding encampments does not solve the problem; it merely disperses it to other locations. And, as has been mentioned in discussions among Vancouver officials, it can lead people removed from roadsides to set up tents in residential neighborhoods. That would only exacerbate the problem.
The city of Vancouver has engaged in broad programs to connect unhoused people with services and to provide shelter. In the long run, those efforts will do more to solve the issue than any Supreme Court ruling ever could.
