Florida Moves to Ban Homeless Sleeping on Streets

B

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
69,430
Reputation
10,652
Daps
187,639
www.newsweek.com

Florida moves to ban homeless sleeping on streets

Florida lawmakers passed HB 1365 in the Republican-controlled House on Friday by a vote of 82 to 26.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

Florida Moves to Ban Homeless Sleeping on Streets​

Published Mar 02, 2024 at 8:32 AM EST

By Ewan Palmer

News Reporter

FOLLOW​


The GOP-controlled Florida House of Representatives passed a bill that aims to prevent homeless people from sleeping in public places.

In a 82-26 vote along party lines, Florida lawmakers approved HB 1365. It prohibits counties and municipalities in the state from "authorizing or otherwise allowing public camping or sleeping" on public property. The bill also allows for funding for homeless shelters while providing designated areas for people to stay in. These areas would need to provide running water and access to utilities such as restrooms, as well as be alcohol- and drug-free zones.

The state of Florida had the third-highest homeless population in the country as of 2022, with nearly 26,000 people listed as experiencing homelessness on any given night, according to the Annual Homeless Assessment Report.

Homelessness in Florida

Homeless people are lying in a makeshift shelter on a sidewalk in Miami on August 4, 2021. Florida lawmakers have passed a bill that would prevent homeless people from sleeping in public. CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

READ MORE

The legislation, which has already been supported by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, was brought forward by Republican state representative Sam Garrison.


"This bill takes steps towards addressing the crisis of chronic homelessness by prohibiting public sleeping or camping on public properties or public rights of way while simultaneously making allowances for secure safe areas for those who have no other place to go," Rep. Garrison said on the House floor on Friday, reported Florida's Voice news outlet.

"This is not a bill designed to put people out of sight, out of mind. It's quite the opposite," Garrison added, via Fox News. Newsweek emailed Rep. Sam Garrison for comment on Saturday.

"When it gets to a point where the problem exceeds the resources to address it, the cost of dealing with it on the back end is inevitably 10 times what it would be on the front end."

During the debate on the House floor, Democratic Rep. Anna Eskamani asked if a homeless person could be arrested if they choose not to stay at the designated areas approved by the state.

"Our bill does not describe criminal penalties. We leave it to the local jurisdictions to make a determination about what's the best way to address the problem," Garrison replied.

The House rejected a series of amendments to the bill put forward by Democrats. These included one to ensure homeless parents and children are kept together, and another that would have banned perpetrators of domestic violence from being allowed in the designated shelters.

In February, DeSantis said he supports the plans to crack down on public homelessness in the state, so Florida does not "become San Francisco."

"It's got to be done in ways focused primary on ensuring public order, ensuring quality of life for residents, ensuring that people's property values are maintained, ensuring that businesses are able to operate," DeSantis said in a February 5 press conference.

After clearing the House, HB 1365 now moves to the Senate for approval. If it also passes through the upper chamber, the legislation will take effect from October 1.
 
Ethnic Vagina Finder

Ethnic Vagina Finder

The Great Paper Chaser
Bushed
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
57,059
Reputation
2,443
Daps
161,392
Reppin
North Jersey but I miss Cali :sadcam:
This is the important part...

The bill also allows for funding for homeless shelters while providing designated areas for people to stay in. These areas would need to provide running water and access to utilities such as restrooms, as well as be alcohol- and drug-free zones.


So the real question is does it ALLOW funding or does it REQUIRE funding or does it ALLOCATE funding.

If it allocates funding, and is properly managed, I don't see the problem with banning people from sleeping on the streets.


It's a blight, and it could possibly lead to someone being harmed.

The only thing that makes this a problem is the lack of competent management and resources.



Nobody should be advocating for sleeping on sidewalks to be legal. If given a choice, a lot of homeless people choose to live that way.

I also see the story didn't talk about mental health or drug treatment... It seems like the only part they cared about was the banning homeless, because it will get cheap votes in the long run.
 
maxamusa

maxamusa

Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
31,392
Reputation
9,182
Daps
81,065
Reppin
Old York
Ethnic Vagina Finder said:
This is the important part...

The bill also allows for funding for homeless shelters while providing designated areas for people to stay in. These areas would need to provide running water and access to utilities such as restrooms, as well as be alcohol- and drug-free zones.


So the real question is does it ALLOW funding or does it REQUIRE funding or does it ALLOCATE funding.

If it allocates funding, and is properly managed, I don't see the problem with banning people from sleeping on the streets.


It's a blight, and it could possibly lead to someone being harmed.

The only thing that makes this a problem is the lack of competent management and resources.



Nobody should be advocating for sleeping on sidewalks to be legal. If given a choice, a lot of homeless people choose to live that way.

I also see the story didn't talk about mental health or drug treatment... It seems like the only part they cared about was the banning homeless, because it will get cheap votes in the long run.
Click to expand...

none of that sounds floridaish at all :russ:
 
B

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
69,430
Reputation
10,652
Daps
187,639
Ethnic Vagina Finder said:
This is the important part...

The bill also allows for funding for homeless shelters while providing designated areas for people to stay in. These areas would need to provide running water and access to utilities such as restrooms, as well as be alcohol- and drug-free zones.


So the real question is does it ALLOW funding or does it REQUIRE funding or does it ALLOCATE funding.

If it allocates funding, and is properly managed, I don't see the problem with banning people from sleeping on the streets.


It's a blight, and it could possibly lead to someone being harmed.

The only thing that makes this a problem is the lack of competent management and resources.



Nobody should be advocating for sleeping on sidewalks to be legal. If given a choice, a lot of homeless people choose to live that way.

I also see the story didn't talk about mental health or drug treatment... It seems like the only part they cared about was the banning homeless, because it will get cheap votes in the long run.
Click to expand...

I asked AI about the language and if the florida senate passes it than all they will have actualy done is make homelessness illegal.

when lawmakers say a bill "allows for funding" , are there legal pitfalls to using this language? is there wiggle room for not following thru with it as opposed to using strong language?


When lawmakers use language like "allows for funding" in a bill, it typically indicates an intention to allocate resources or create the possibility for funding, but it does not necessarily guarantee funding. This kind of language can be intentionally vague or flexible, which can lead to some legal and political considerations.

Legal Pitfalls:

1. Ambiguity: The phrase "allows for funding" can be open to interpretation, leaving room for disputes over whether funding is mandatory or discretionary. If the bill doesn't specify a clear allocation or mechanism for dispersing funds, it could lead to legal challenges if stakeholders believe the intent was not being fulfilled.

2. Budgetary discretion: Without specific language mandating funding, the actual budgeting process may give legislators or executive branch officials discretion over whether to appropriate funds for the intended purpose. This can result in funding being reduced or eliminated altogether, depending on political priorities or budget constraints.

3. Implementation: Vague language can create uncertainty during implementation, as agencies and local governments may struggle to interpret the legislative intent and plan accordingly.

Political Considerations:

1. Flexibility: Lawmakers might use this language to signal support for a cause without committing to a specific dollar amount or creating a binding obligation. This can be a strategic move to gain political support while retaining some control over the budget.

2. Future negotiations: By not specifying funding, lawmakers leave room for future negotiations and adjustments, which can be useful in complex legislative processes where compromise is often necessary.

3. Public perception: Using strong language to commit to funding may be more popular with constituents but could be seen as less fiscally responsible or realistic, especially if budgetary constraints exist.

In summary, the language "allows for funding" provides some wiggle room and can be a way for lawmakers to express support without making a firm commitment. It can create legal uncertainties and may allow for changes during budget negotiations, but it can also be a strategic choice to maintain flexibility in a political context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
UTAH - POLICE RESCUE TEAMS WILL OFFER THE HOMELESS TWO OPTIONS: JAIL OR A WORK REQUIRED “RICH-RESOURCE FACILITY”
5 6 7
Replies
93
Views
5K
dh86
dh86
Top