• KevonLooney@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    3 months ago

    Technically it’s not illegal to sleep on the street, but there are sanitation rules regarding it. NYC has 8 million people. Any problem you can think of is magnified. It’s literally a sanitary issue if you allow thousands of people to camp outside.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/26/nyregion/nyc-homeless-camp-bill-of-rights.html

    In New York City, there are many rules on the books that have been used to restrict sleeping rough.

    One is a piece of sanitation code that makes it unlawful to leave “any box, barrel, bale or merchandise or other movable property” or to erect “any shed, building or other obstruction” on “any public place.”

    In city parks, it is illegal to “engage in camping, or erect or maintain a tent, shelter or camp” without a permit, or to be in a park at all between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. unless posted rules state otherwise.

    And on the property of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, both underground and in outdoor elevated subway stations, it is a form of banned disorderly conduct to “sleep or doze” in any manner that “may interfere” with the comfort of passengers. Nor may subway riders “lie down or place feet on the seat of a train, bus or platform bench or occupy more than one seat” or “place bags or personal items on seats” in ways that “impede the comfort of other passengers.”

    Note that these rules also restrict people who have homes too. No one can have a party in the park after hours or take up a ton of space on the subway. Note also that you can sleep outside if you don’t get in the way.

    someone who did not violate any of those rules — say, someone who set a sleeping bag in an out-of-the-way spot under a highway overpass and did not put up any kind of shelter — was legally in the clear, at least in theory.

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Obviously they restrict people who have homes but that isn’t really relevant here, is it? Those people have choices, they get to choose to stay late in a park and the alternative for them is go home.

      It’s not even close to the same thing.

      • Zorque@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        They didn’t say it was the same thing, they just mentioned that it’s not just to target the homeless.

        As you said in another comment, things are often more complex than one thing or another.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Exactly. These are necessary rules for a large city. No one can camp without a permit because then parks would be unusable. The same permit is for weddings, parties, whatever. It’s pretty easy to get one for a few hours, but they will reject it if you ask to use the park every day and night.

          People living outside in public parks and on streets is a really bad use of urban space. It takes public space and makes it private. That’s why the city gives out free room in old hotels and shelters. It’s a good thing people can’t sleep wherever.

    • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Note that these rules also restrict people who have homes too. No one can have a party in the park after hours or take up a ton of space on the subway. Note also that you can sleep outside if you don’t get in the way.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        This doesn’t apply because the law doesn’t forbid anyone from sleeping under bridges. Also, you can get housing for free. That’s my point. It’s the opposite of that quote. Unless you’re pro-theft or something.

          • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            There are a ton of articles on it. The system is huge and has been around for decades. Look it up if you like. If you don’t care, don’t.

            No one said it was good at all. It’s a necessary service in a big city. Obviously some shelters are very different from others. None of them are at nice hotels, but you can get your own room and a place for some of your stuff.

            The major complaints are usually “it’s too small” or “they don’t let me have pets”. Guess what? There are actual apartments people pay for that are too small and don’t allow pets. It’s NYC.

            I’m talking about reality in this century. You’re quoting an 1800s writer from another country. The system is a complicated solution to a complicated problem. So there’s not going to be any simple answer, and definitely not from online quotes.

            • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              If you lack a sense of humor and can’t see how close your quote was to his, that’s fine. It was funny to me and maybe others. That you haven’t learned something people were joking about hundreds of years ago is kinda on you.

              The effects of violating these fair and just laws - do they impact the homeless and the housed the same? Do the laws, say, give fines based on income? Or do they give preferential treatment to people with better, often more expensive lawyers?

              But no, your statement wasn’t silly at all. The law is totally fair to the poor and wealthy alike.

              I would have to talk to a homeless person who was homeless recently in NYC and used these programs to assess them.

              Where should they leave their pets, ESAs, and service dogs when they stay in the shelter? Do you think roaming packs of dogs at night would be good?

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          It’s a glowed up version of “The law binds both rich and poor equally”. A transparently untrue statement that’s meant to draw attention to laws that are a mere inconvenience for the rich but seriously hurt the poor.