Good news this week: the Department of Justice told towns and cities the obvious:
When adequate shelter space exists, individuals have a choice about whether or not to sleep in public. However, when adequate shelter space does not exist, there is no meaningful distinction between the status of being homeless and the conduct of sleeping in public. Sleeping is a life-sustaining activity — i.e., it must occur at some time in some place. If a person literally has nowhere else to go, then enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance against that person criminalizes her for being homeless.
Washington Post
This should block San Francisco's recurrent
ballot measures to criminalize being poor and homeless. But it probably won't.
San Francisco does have far too many folks who get their rest where they can. This gentleman seems to have just put down his book before nodding off.
It's hard to tell whether this fellow is passed out or just feeling the sun. We take what sun we can get here in Fog City.
Some sleeping choices seem to make a statement.
Others just seem counterintuitive.
Not all who recline are animate.
Some sleepers might bark if disturbed.
Come to think of it, this one almost certainly would bark.
This harmonious figure smiles as the world goes by ...
... while this one embodies harmony itself.
Most photos are out-takes from 596 Precincts.
1 comment:
You claim to be "progressive" and have more homeless than the South. You claim to "celebrate diversity" and are the only major urban area with a decreasing AFrican American population.
Pathetic. Hypocritical. Like your church.
Post a Comment