The US Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments about what cities can and cannot do to end homelessness.
What if there is a bed available in the Gospel Rescue Mission, but Ms. Johnson, a person, doesn't want it? Doesn’t wish to leave their pet. Her Rottweiler's not permitted there. So that is a difficult question for a person, and a difficult policy question.
What everyone agreed on was that homelessness is a difficult problem.
Many people have mentioned this is a serious policy problem… So, the policy questions in this case are very difficult….Martin speaks in terms of someone who is involuntarily homeless and that raises all of those policy questions… We usually think about whether state law, local law already achieves those purposes so that the federal courts aren't micromanaging homeless policy…
I think most people listening to the Supreme Court would agree: it isn’t going to solve homelessness. That is a job for state legislators. So why haven’t they? Why has homelessness gotten worse?
