Abe Lincoln: What a rube.
It turns out that honesty is not the best policy. It may not even be one of the better policies.
There are so many reasons to feel that way now, but this morning’s United States Supreme Court ruling enabling municipalities to roust, fine or even incarcerate homeless people without offering them anywhere to go might as well suffice.
Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch’s decision leans rather heavily on an amicus brief submitted by San Francisco. The San Francisco officials who submitted that amicus brief buttressing Gorsuch’s opinion will have to come to terms with what they have done. So will others. Many, many others.
The issue here isn’t that San Francisco’s streets are pristine and its approach to homelessness unassailable. That’d be a ludicrous claim. But no less ludicrous than the claims made by this city, in its brief, that airy-fairy Eighth Amendment concerns about cruel and unusual punishment have “severely constrained San Francisco’s ability to address the homelessness crisis.”
Gorsuch cites Mayor London Breed saying as much in her brief. But it ain’t necessarily so: The Chronicle only yesterday pointed out that the tally of homeless encampments moved off the street has increased following the 2022 injunction that supposedly “constrained San Francisco’s ability to address the homelessness crisis.”
In September 2023, we noted that some 1,200 homeless people had been moved inside thus far that year, a significant and praiseworthy total that, again, counters the city’s claim that a vast armada of entitled and indignant bums are calling the shots here, and the city is powerless to intervene.
The truth of the matter is that San Francisco has never wholly lost its ability to remove tents from the streets, and has never truly been “severely constrained” in addressing the homelessness crisis — again, amply demonstrated by the fact that we are now removing more tents.
San Francisco’s dishonest representation of the facts, however, has provided succor to the Trump Supreme Court, and will now enable a nationwide homeless crackdown. No longer will homeless people have to be given an offer of shelter before being rousted or criminalized.
That’s not San Francisco’s policy, of course. Both the mayor and the city attorney noted this morning that this city will continue to lead with “compassion” and “services first.”
Sure, we will: In our “liberal” town, policies won’t change. But San Francisco’s policies were never at issue. It was our practices that were the problem. In the lawsuit that led to the 2022 injunction, homeless people claimed that their possessions were confiscated by San Francisco city workers — or out and out stolen — and that, in violation of the city’s stated policy, they were rousted without being given a good-faith offer of shelter.
Following today’s ruling, there’s a lot less legal standing to hold San Francisco to its “compassionate” and “service-first” policies. And less “liberal” municipalities, which don’t even deign to claim such policies, let alone practice them, can essentially crack the whip and drive their homeless populations to places that do. Like here.
Any legal compunction to build shelters or housing for the homeless has been severely undermined. And, while San Francisco has voter-enshrined ordinances and police codes requiring a timely offer of shelter before a tent encampment is removed, they can now be blown off without the specter of an Eighth Amendment legal challenge looming behind them.
According to the homeless plaintiffs in the ‘22 suit against the city, they were already being blown off. Even with it.
Let’s call the August 2023 protest outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in which Mayor Breed and other elected officials and candidates bellowed with rage at a building, what it was: A transcendently stupid moment.
It was transcendently stupid to claim that a December 2022 injunction led to this city becoming overrun with vagrants and tents. San Francisco has had a homeless problem stretching back generations. In 2020, years before that injunction, things got so bad in the heart of the city that San Francisco was forced to enter into a humiliating settlement with the school formerly known as the University of California, Hastings.
The ongoing — in fact, augmented — removal of tents from the streets following that injunction only reveals just how transcendently stupid that moment was. And dishonest. Don’t forget the dishonesty.
But it was the wind in Neil Gorsuch’s sails. Gorsuch, you may recall, was fed a “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” softball question by Sen. Ted Cruz during his confirmation hearing in 2017 (“What is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything?”)
And, with San Francisco’s amicus brief to the Supreme Court, along came Mayor Breed, playing the role of Cruz, lobbing a softball to Gorsuch. Except, this time, it held tangible consequences.
“Often, encampments are found in a city’s ‘poorest and most vulnerable neighborhoods,’” wrote Gorsuch, quoting San Francisco’s brief. “With encampments dotting neighborhood sidewalks, adults and children in these communities are sometimes forced to navigate around used needles, human waste and other hazards to make their way to school, the grocery store, or work.”
“‘Judicial intervention’ … the Mayor continues, ‘has led to painful results on the streets and in neighborhoods,’” Gorsuch concluded.
Gorsuch — and, by extension, Breed — would have you believe that San Francisco is powerless to prevent every man, woman and child from asphyxiating in a swamp of needles and feces. But, again, it ain’t necessarily so: Yes, the 2022 injunction specifically did not allow cops to cite or threaten street dwellers with four sections of the penal code and two sections of the police code regarding, among other matters, public lodging or sitting on the sidewalk.
But it did allow authorities to move or dismantle encampments, based on three other sections of the penal and health codes, including “willfully and maliciously obstruct[ing] the free movement of any person on any street, sidewalk, or other public place or on or in any place open to the public” and “Any accumulation of filth, garbage, decayed or spoiled food, unsanitary debris or waste material, or decaying animal or vegetable matter.”
San Francisco homeless workers last year told me that, per the injunction, they treated every last homeless person they encountered as “involuntarily homeless,” even people they’d already housed who were, clearly, not involuntarily homeless. But that was never required of them. In fact, the plaintiffs’ lawyers told us that this was not something they ever advocated for — or even wanted.
In the end, there appears to have been a striking divergence between what San Francisco could have done under the injunction and what it did. Even still, San Francisco retained plenty of means of compelling homeless people off the streets, and the cold, hard facts indicate that it did so, and continues to do so.
And yet, this city, with a generations-in-the-making homeless and housing problem, claimed in its amicus brief that a two-year-old legal situation led to San Francisco being besieged and helpless. And now, the Supreme Court has parlayed that into enabling draconian means of dealing with the unhoused.
So, that was dishonest. Dishonesty was the policy.
In case you were wondering, the answer to “the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything” is “42.”
In case you were wondering what to do about this city, and this country, of ours? You’re on your own.
The so-called homeless advocates who supported the 9th Circuit’s wild overreach have now sparked an even worse backlash in the other direction. Here in SF our politicians will bend over backwards to reduce the impact on vulnerable populations, but others in less welcoming cities won’t be so lucky.
The city plays it both ways. Breed, not wanting to piss off her nonprofit friends, has pretended that there’s no way to clean up the streets by hiding behind the Grant’s Pass ruling. The Supreme Court’s timing works in her favor – now she can pretend that her hands are untied and she’s free to “fix the problem.” Voters should not be fooled – if London Breed had strong intentions to fix homelessness, the fentanyl business, and the street encampments that endanger all San Franciscans, she’d have done it by now.
Come on, Joe. All the Supreme Court held was that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit was the only appellate court than had reached such a crazy conclusion (so this does not change anything “nationwide”). The SF district court expressly relied on that now-refuted Ninth Circuit decision in granting a pretty broad injunction barring the enforcement of laws against all sorts of conduct by the homeless. San Francisco still CAN adopt the super-permissive stance you appear to advocate – if you think that is the prevailing view, get the laws changed. The Grants Pass decision simply means that the city is not prevented from applying state and local laws and threatening to impose penalties against those unlawfully sitting, lying, or sleeping on public property. The Fourth Amendment component of the injunction that you note, relating to the possessions of the homeless, was not affected by Grants Pass. And San Francisco’s amicus brief was not a “dishonest representation of the facts.” Shame on you. These are fine lawyers from the City Attorney’s office under a duty of candor to the court. If you think they were “dishonest,” report them to the bar – that complaint will be summarily dismissed and rightly so. You disagree with the city’s policies and practices regarding the homeless, fine. But don’t be dishonest in how you report about it; you just lose credibility.
Since 1982, SF has had a homeless “policy” which alternates between benign neglect and malign neglect. Unfortunately for the Mayor, the law is no longer a convenient scapegoat. Who’s she going to blame now? Progressives? Outside Agitators? The army of mentally ill zombies camped in Mill Valley, waiting for the order to invade SF?
This ruling is a huge victory for San Francisco and the Mission in particular, as well as other cities with large populations of street campers
Perhaps local homeless situation would be partially alleviated by:
1. A National/ State health service- so people do not fall through the cracks in the first place (Republican’s don’t want that)
2. Conservatorship – so the mentally ill are not out on their own (the Far left don’t want that)
3. Local repeal of the punitive rental laws – that would if revoked lower prices for the general public (far left doesn’t want that)
4. If SF didn’t give cash 3X the amount that surrounding counties give to anyone who wants to come and live on the streets here. – I’m not sure anyone wants that except the non-profits. It would put them out of business.
I feel bad for the people who need help, they are the ones who really suffer. A family member who works in the TL clinics estimates 80% game the system and only 20% can really be helped. Non-profits really have no incentive to alleviate the pain of poor souls in need. Funding should be based on how many people are helped back on their feet.
SF just went too far with its far left policies and now the tide changes.
What’s the point of your article? I think you are missing the point. The core issue here is not the well known dishonesty of politicians; it is the large amount of bums and druggies peeing and defecating in the streets of San Francisco. That reached an unbearable point, leading, in part, to a decrease of SF population. The Mayor allowed this situation to take place, then once it became out of control, she used the law to claim that she couldn’t cleanup the mess she created. Finally, what makes you think that we should pay taxes to house anyone else, while we struggle to maintain our schools open with an enormous budget.
This decision is surely the first, the last, and the only good ruling taken by this evil Supreme court.
BTW, If you want to take a couple of bums at home, please do it without us.
I remember when the Mission homeless car used to drive around looking for encampments at which the residents were away. He would get SO excited when he found one because that meant he would call DPW and have then haul it away. Sure, sometimes a “bag and tag” was asked for. But there was never anyone there to associate a name with the property. And it was all simply thrown into the back of a truck, usually along with other property and trash so it was all mixed together. I have little doubt it went straight to the dump. He even used to brag about. It was one of the most sad and pathetic things I have ever seen.
The SF Dem establishment that is backing the Trump court, and making friends with right wing monied interests on a whole host of issues has no clue (or doesn’t care) about the IMMENSE damage they are doing to any shred of credibility that government and elections generally have among the public.
Watching Dems all over the country slam to the right after 2020 on a host of issues has alienated a generation of voters and organizers. None sees the ballot as a solution to anything. It’s ooooover. And what comes after that, watch out.