How could the US Supreme Court's case Grants Pass v. Johnson impact SF's unhoused community?

This is not super complicated. Provide enough shelter beds and give them the choice between shelter or jail. Citizens have had it with this nonsense.

Given billions spent where is the result? I tried to avoid SF as much as possible since it is a giant broken toilet bowl.

How about criminalizing landlords, grocery stores, and other companies that raise prices that no one can afford to live in any city?

Is this Columbia University or homeless camp?

In fact, it is not clear who needs it and what will happen next. Can someone explain it to me?

People who think this is unfair should open out your living room and front yard and let the homeless sleep in your space.

They ruin 😢the business. The city

It's times like this that I don't have to make these decisions. There is no right answer to this one folks, they have to live somewhere no matter what you think.

The amount of brilliant minded homeless people I've conversed with in SF would boggle the mind. Would be great if some of the local tech companies with endless free space in the half vacant highrises in the Financial District. Would work with these folks to find their strengths and curate employment opportunites for them based on each person's unique skillsets.

Meanwhile, the $95bn in total funding from our government includes roughly $61bn for Ukraine, with some of the funding going towards replenishing American munitions; $26bn for Israel; $8bn for US allies in the Indo-Pacific region, including Taiwan; and $9bn in humanitarian assistance for civilians in war zones, such as Haiti, Sudan, and Gaza.

Why do we spend money on other countries?

With all the money the state gets for the homeless the can buy canival cruise line and fill it up and sail away and feed them

0:50 where does he charge his wireless JBL headset?

Thanks @ABC7 News Bay Area for posting this video about affirmative action / supreme court. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding affirmative action. 1) This case is about a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). They said that these schools were not fair in their admissions process because they were using race as a factor, which they believed was against the law. The law they referred to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*. 2) The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. The SFFA believed that by considering race in admissions, Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally. 3) The Court looked at the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been used in the past. They also looked at how other cases involving race and college admissions were handled. They found that while diversity in a student body can be a good thing, it must be handled in a way that treats all applicants fairly and equally. 4) The Court also looked at the idea of "strict scrutiny*". This is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional. 5) The Court found that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC did not pass strict scrutiny. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear or specific enough, and it resulted in fewer admissions for certain racial groups. They also said that the schools' use of race in admissions seemed to stereotype certain racial groups, which is not allowed. 6) The Court also said that the schools' admissions systems did not have a clear end point. This means that there was no clear plan for when the schools would stop using race as a factor in admissions. This was another reason why the Court said the schools' admissions systems were not fair. 7) The Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear, specific, or fair enough to be allowed. 8) However, the Court also said that schools can consider how race has affected an applicant's life. They can look at how an applicant's experiences with their race have shaped them and what they can bring to the school because of those experiences. 9) In the end, the Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the law. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not allowed because it was not clear, specific, or fair enough. 10) So, the Court decided that the SFFA was right. They said that Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally in their admissions process, which is against the law. They said that the schools needed to change their admissions systems to be fair to all applicants, no matter their race. *The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. *Strict scrutiny is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.

What about these homeless leaving junk everywhere they encamp, along with feces, drug paraphernalia etc. Most of the time the homeless are given a shelter but elect to live on the streets as evidenced by the old man saying the quarters just weren’t right. Well are they expecting a room at the Ritz Carlton?

Well we the USA TAXPAYERS just spent 95 billion on 3 countries.

Elitist arrogance

As a lifelong resident of Grants Pass, born and raised, we need to address this problem the right way for everyone involved. Homelessness is tough to endure fore the homeless, but most of the people at the camps in town don't want to go to a shelter and obey rules or take responsibility for themselves ( i.e. no drug use). The trashy mess many leave around their drug dens is impossible to ignore and helping no-one through inaction and ignorance.

Unhoused? I hate the 21st century

One aspect of the homeless plight that consistently gets overlooked. Is that the lack of quality sleep makes their situation even worse. Exasperates mental health issues. Makes it difficult to have any kind of consistent routine that will in turn help them with work ethic when positive opportunites come their way.