San Diego seems poised to outlaw homeless encampments on public property.


City council members in San Diego are considering a proposal to ban homeless encampments from public property amid years-long frustration over the city's mounting homelessness crisis. (https://www.foxnews.com/category/topic/homeless-crisis)
The City Council is expected to debate the proposal, submitted by City councilman Stephen Whitburn, on Tuesday, FOX5 San Diego reported (https://fox5sandiego.com/news/politics/gloria-urges-city-council-to-pass-unsafe-camping-ordinance/). The proposal seeks to prohibit homeless people from camping on public property if shelter options are available. Camping in certain areas, like public parks and near schools, would be prohibited regardless of whether shelters had availability.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/proposal-banning-homeless-encampments-san-diego-considered-giant-toilet

San Diego has been a sorta conservative bastion in the state ;at least before 2008 . Then the city moved decidedly left . Before the 21st century the city only voted for Dem Prez 6 times ...4 for FDR and once each for Bubba and Woodrow Wilson (both had 3rd party challenges ) Repub challengers for Guv almost always comes from the area (Pete Wilson being the most recent Repub ) Since 2008 they voted for the emperor twice ;Evita ,and Cluless.


I think what is happening there is what will be happening to many border towns . There is backlash from the open border policies now that they see the consequences of the folly.

As for the proposal above. When it passes I'll believe it . The Dems have a 9-0 majority in the city council

Why do we need conservative judges who are able to come to some rational legal decisions? Start with this.


Martin v. Boise was a case that challenged the constitutionality of enforcing ordinances that prohibit sleeping or camping on public property against homeless individuals who have no option of sleeping indoors1 (https://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/March-2020/Local-Response-to-Martin-v-Boise.aspx)2 (https://homelesslaw.org/supreme-court-martin-v-boise/). The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the homeless plaintiffs in 2018, holding that such enforcement violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments1 (https://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/March-2020/Local-Response-to-Martin-v-Boise.aspx)3 (https://fixhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/58/securepdfs/2020/05/Navigating-Martin-v-Boise.pdf). The Supreme Court declined to review the decision in 2019, making it final4 (https://www.nlc.org/article/2019/12/18/significant-homeless-decision-stands/). The decision has caused alarm among cities and confusion over its implications for public health and safety3 (https://fixhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/58/securepdfs/2020/05/Navigating-Martin-v-Boise.pdf). In 2021, the case was settled with an agreement that the city of Boise would focus on providing services and housing rather than criminalizing homelessness.So a homeless man can evidently tell city officials that yes, I can pee on the street if I want to unless you have a vacant bed for me to sleep in. The lunacy just continues to ramble on down the line.

In an attempt to be in legal alignment with that insane decision, SD has spent nearly 200 million dollars the past two or three years in purchasing housing units for the homeless.

Another win for common sense.


A Starbucks regional manager (https://www.foxbusiness.com/category/starbucks) won a $25.6 million verdict Friday after she accused the corporation of firing her for being White in response to a national backlash over the arrest of two Black men at one of its Philadelphia cafes.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/starbucks-manager-shannon-phillips-wins-25-million-lawsuit-fired-white-donte-robinson-rashon-nelson

Poor Starbucks they are caught in that intersectional and woke crossroad .

I worked in NJ most of my career . Although the state has recently turned "blue " the people of the state are mostly common sense conservative. I worked with all kinds ;all races ;multiple ethnicities ,rich ,poor . I managed hundreds of workers in the course of my career. Some lived through the destructions of the 1967 Newark riots . Some lived in the decay of the Patterson Dem machine politics . Many lived in ethnic enclaves . There were straight ,gays .They all came in to work and were treated equally and for the most part got along . They were a team.

So it doesn't surprise me that a jury verdict of them decided in favor of a manager protecting her store over chicken sh*t corporate owners who will not defend their stores from predators . She should've been rewarded rather than fires . Now she gets her reward .

The owners of Starbucks must cower under the covers wondering who they will offend next . That is why it is schadenfreude that they got caught up in the "Pride " issue. They don't know which way to go .

Starbucks Has Allegedly Banned Pride Decorations From Some Stores | Them (https://www.them.us/story/starbucks-allegedly-bans-pride-decorations-from-some-stores)

They are caught in the dilemma that Target got into . You can't please all the intersectional interests .

Hmm "Pride Month:" that seems to be getting more coverage and attention than 'Black History Month ' did . For that month the White House had some round table discussions . For Pride Month the White House hosted a Lawn celebration of depravity .