SENATE BILL: The Public means Public Act (Redraft Law'd)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

NAY

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Aye, but I get the feeling that goldwater's and adam's amendments are functionally the same thing.

I get that sense as well.

ABSTAIN for now.

Part of me wants to vote nay and work out another compromise but I'd need some convincing that there is Constitutional authority for either Section 1 or Section 3 in terms of the Senate limiting the regions ability to legislate on this matter.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm all for making sure places aren't trying to make outcasts of the homeless, but to say that locales can't make any type of restrictions at all on where a person can sleep just seems like it might be too much to ask. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm all for making sure places aren't trying to make outcasts of the homeless, but to say that locales can't make any type of restrictions at all on where a person can sleep just seems like it might be too much to ask.  

I don't think they can sleep on private property,
And public does mean public, after all.
Perhaps this bill would incentivize
The common man to actually care
About and confront homelessness instead
Of banning feeding poor folks on the street.

and perhaps more public property being privatized as well.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

interesting proposal.  does this mean someone must be allowed to camp out on Abe Lincoln's lap?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

interesting proposal.  does this mean someone must be allowed to camp out on Abe Lincoln's lap?

Wouldn't the underlying legislation have the same effect anyway?

Yes, but I hadn't thought of that example otherwise.

I must point out that in Lincoln's day it wasn't uncommon to find visitor to the White House sleeping in the hallways in various parts of the mansion.

I can't say I'm against that.  However, my Senate office must remain sacrosanct.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Aye

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If it'll keep you folks happy I'll offer this amendment. Any legal wizardry to make the wording of that work better would be appreciated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would mean the money in clause 4 isn't available for regions that have established programs for housing for the homeless.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It should be noted that the Senate has never had the power to my knowledge to repeal a non-federal law.  We cannot go into the regional codes and just start deleting things.  That is not to say that the Senate can keep a regional law from being enforced, but still that would require some sort of constitutional basis, which has not been established for this bill.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Okay so where do we stand. We have to remove clauses 1 and 2 to get the President's support, correct?

Maybe we can replace it with a clause saying homeless people cannot be discriminated against in their use of public space and facilities?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What do you mean by that? I just want to ensure cities are not forbidden from keeping their streets clean and safe. I won't sign anything that restricts them or allows for panhandling and loitering all over this country.

I mean if a public space is open to people, it is open to homeless people as well.  If it is closed then it is still closed.  But if any city is going to try to restrict homeless people from entire sections of the city then that is discriminatory and a basic violation of rights. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What do you mean by that? I just want to ensure cities are not forbidden from keeping their streets clean and safe. I won't sign anything that restricts them or allows for panhandling and loitering all over this country.

I mean if a public space is open to people, it is open to homeless people as well.  If it is closed then it is still closed.  But if any city is going to try to restrict homeless people from entire sections of the city then that is discriminatory and a basic violation of rights. 

We are talking in terms of allowing people to establish a domacile (SP?) on public spaces. Of course they are allowed to visit these people like any other person, but the difference is that just like anyone else, they would present not be allowed to stay there permenently if such is presently a restriction. This bill would ban those restrictions.

But what about a non-discrimination clause instead?  There are some places that have tried to get rid of homeless from hanging out in downtown areas, even though others are able to. Would you support making such policies illegal?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Aye

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If we do move forward with this redraft, the name needs to be changed.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

abstain

the bill title really doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think that's good for our laws.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So the other option in this case to make changes would have been if the sponsor reopened up debate, and then the Senate amend it, which the President could then sign.