Public parks belong to the public, right? A billionaire can't cordon off an acre of Golden Gate Park for his private party. But can a poor person — or anyone who claims they can't afford a home — take over public spaces where children play and families experience nature?
That is the question now before the Supreme Court case, Grants Pass v. Johnson. Before going into particulars, note that both Republican and Democratic politicians think the answer should be "no." That leaves activists who support the right of "the homeless" to take over public property. They want a "yes."
The case is a challenge to a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, that cities cannot evict "homeless" campers if there are more of them than the local shelters can accommodate. It stems from an ordinance issued by Grants Pass, Oregon, that strictly limits the opportunity to erect a home on public spaces. It forbids even wrapping oneself in a blanket while sitting or lying in public.
A conservative Ninth Circuit judge, Daniel Bress, issued an angry response to the ruling that, critics say, has actually encouraged the sprawling tent encampments tormenting the nine Western states in the court's jurisdiction. It's been noted that in the four years since the decision, homelessness in the states the Ninth Circuit covers grew by about 25% while falling in the rest of the country.
Bress urged the judges to just look out the windows of their San Francisco courthouse. They will see, he said, "homelessness, drug addiction, barely concealed narcotics dealing, severe mental health impairment, the post-COVID hollowing out of our business districts."
Gavin Newsom, Democratic governor of California, joins in the criticism. The Grants Pass decision, he says, has "impeded not only the ability to enforce basic health and safety measures, but also the ability to move people into available shelter beds and temporary housing."
The debate over the rights of the "homeless" has always stumbled over an agreed definition of the homeless population. Some may be families unable to meet rising rents. Some are mentally ill. Some are addicts, while others are "drug tourists." Some reject the accommodations at shelters, preferring to sleep under the stars.
Is the solution to let any of these groups take over parks where children play? Is it to let them visit squalor on the very business districts cities need to pay for public services, including theirs?
The city of Los Angeles holds that homeless camps deny pedestrians and the disabled use of the streets. Cities in Arizona have argued that the law is simply unworkable. The enormous encampment in Phoenix has reportedly cost Arizona millions of dollars and years of litigation.
Drawing lines isn't always easy. Can a city criminalize public urination by someone who doesn't have access to a toilet? What about lighting a fire to cook on? Addiction is not a crime, though it is constitutional to punish someone for using illegal drugs.
It may be necessary to dust off a term coined by John Kenneth Galbraith in the 1950s, though in a way the economist did not intend. It's the existence in this country of what he called "private affluence, public squalor." While the urban rich may have five acres at their country house for their kids to play on, their housekeepers' children have only public parks as their green playground.
We don't pretend here to have an answer for the homeless problem. Because the population is diverse, the answers must also be diverse. But one answer can't be to strip away the public's right to use the public spaces that ultimately belong to them.
Reprinted with permission from Creators.
‘Duck Dynasty’ Star To Return After Anti-Gay Outrage
Los Angeles (AFP) – The star of America’s most popular cable TV reality show will be allowed to return to the program, a statement said, after his suspension for inflammatory remarks about homosexuality and blacks triggered a national furor.
The A&E Network confirmed its popular “Duck Dynasty” show would resume filming next year with star performer Phil Robertson back on board following the storm over his anti-gay comments in a recent interview.
Robertson, 67, the patriarch of the extended family of Louisiana hunters whose lives are chronicled in “Duck Dynasty” was suspended by A&E after suggesting homosexuality is sinful and could lead to bestiality.
In the same interview with GQ magazine, Robertson also minimized the era of racist segregation of blacks in America’s southern states.
Robertson’s comments appalled gay rights activists who demanded A&E consider take action and urged sponsors to cut ties to the program, which is the most-watched nonfiction cable show in U.S. television history.
However the outcry after Robertson’s suspension was matched by an equally vigorous response from fans and socially conservative Republicans, with many claiming Robertson’s rights to free speech were being violated.
After a week-long war of words A&E confirmed that Robertson would return to the show after the star said he “regretted” the way his remarks had been portrayed.
“While Phil’s comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the ‘coarse language’ he used and the misinterpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article,” A&E said in a statement. “He also made it clear he would ‘never incite or encourage hate.’ We at A&E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article and reiterate that they are not views we hold.”
The statement from the broadcaster said “Duck Dynasty” was “not a show about one man’s views.”
“It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family — a family that America has come to love,” he said. “So after discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming Duck Dynasty later this spring with the entire Robertson family.”
A&E said it was planning to launch a national campaign of advertisements preaching unity, tolerance and acceptance.
A&E’s climbdown over Robertson received a chilly response from gay rights activists, however.
“Phil Robertson should look African American and gay people in the eyes and hear about the hurtful impact of praising Jim Crow laws and comparing gay people to terrorists,” a spokesman for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said in a statement.
“If dialogue with Phil is not part of next steps then A&E has chosen profits over African American and gay people — especially its employees and viewers.”
First broadcast in 2012, “Duck Dynasty” centers on Robertson and a family who struck it rich making and selling a cedar wood duck call for hunters called the Duck Commander, yet never abandoned their raw bayou ways.
Many fans say they love the weekly show for its downhome family values: no matter how dysfunctional the Robertsons are, they always come together in the end with love and affection.
Season four premiered in August with 11.8 million viewers, making it the most-watched nonfiction cable show in U.S. television history.
Season five is scheduled to begin on January 15 and the show is also seen on cable and satellite in Europe and Asia.
Besides “Duck Dynasty,” which GQ said earns the Robertson clan a reported $200,000 an episode, the family has published four non-fiction best-sellers this year.
Lucrative merchandising also includes smartphone apps, greeting cards, bobblehead dolls, camouflage outfits and car fresheners.