this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2026
62 points (97.0% liked)
Asklemmy
55662 readers
151 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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/