JOHN YANG: Tomorrow, the Supreme Court hears arguments about whether laws limiting homeless encampments in public places are unconstitutional because they punish people for being homeless.
The case is about laws in Grants Pass, Oregon, a city of about 40,000 in the state southwest corner, but the outcome could reshape policies nationwide for years to come.
Charley Willison teaches public health at Cornell University.
Sheús the author of "Ungoverned and Out of Sight: Public Health and the Political Crisis of Homelessness in the United States."
Charley, in the filings for this case Grants Pass as well there these laws are about public health and public safety.
The two homeless people who have brought this case say itús really about pushing homeless people out of the -- out of Grants Pass getting them to move on to go someplace else.
Whatús your take on that?
CHARLEY WILLISON, Cornell University: This is such an important question.
And what this case is really getting at is a deep tension that American cities face when thinking about how to respond to homelessness across the country, but especially in West Coast cities that have very limited shelter capacity, and are also in the midst of a housing crisis.
And these two tensions that Iúd like to emphasize are that cities generally use much more punitive policies these criminalization approaches that are at the heart of Johnson versus Grants Pass to effectively punish people who are experiencing homelessness for behaviors that are associated with the realities of homelessness.
Now, importantly, the use of these punitive policies actually facilitate cycles of homelessness and does not effectively end homelessness.
While the alternative addressing homelessness through the use of more housing, as well as housing paired with access to social and medical services, does successfully end homelessness.
However, we have seen cities across the United States have much less emphasis on the use of housing and supportive services compared to these punitive policies that are at the heart of this case.
JOHN YANG: But at the same time, these camping bans are really spreading just this spring.
Governor DeSantis and Florida signed a ban statewide banning camping in public places.
But you say this really doesnút help homelessness is it, does it hurt it?
CHARLEY WILLISON: So these camping bans and other broadly punitive responses again, where we see people who are experiencing homelessness being either find through civil penalties or criminalized through criminal penalties for realities associated with homelessness, whether it is sleeping in public sitting down in public eating public, things like this do actually promote cycles of homelessness.
Now, the Florida law that is in question is a ban on camping.
However, it is also using an interim solution where there are temporary shelters and that will hopefully be used, as opposed to criminalizing people.
So banning camping as opposed to incarcerating people, or finding people directing people into temporary shelters, which appear to be sanctioned camping sites.
JOHN YANG: What about the ballot proposal that narrowly passed earlier this year in California that directs counties to spend more money on housing programs and drug treatment programs?
Will that help?
Will that make a difference?
CHARLEY WILLISON: Proposition one in California, which passed just about a month ago, this raises the issue of the housing crisis itself, and the need for West Coast cities in particular, but especially cities across the United States, to engage in more housing based solutions, which are the only solution that effectively successfully ends homelessness.
Across the country having these investments and in California, especially where there are by far very limited or far more limited shelter and housing opportunities compared to other East Coast cities.
For example, having more accountability, where cities are required to spend a certain proportion of their budgets on housing will likely help improve the situation and require cities to engage in these evidence based policies which are far more effective.
JOHN YANG: From your perspective, whatús the public health issue or whatús the public health effect implications of homelessness?
CHARLEY WILLISON: There are many, many grave public health effects of homelessness.
If we think about homelessness, in general, people experiencing homelessness, whether it is short term or long term face group far greater morbidity and mortality compared to the general population.
And this is both in the short term and the long term.
For example, we know that people who are experiencing sheltered homelessness, so this is when they donút have to sleep outside, they have a place to go their mortality rates are about three times higher than the general population.
Whereas people who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness, which is the population that is at the heart of this court case, have mortality rates are about 10 times higher than the general population.
So when weúre thinking about population health and homelessness is absolutely a public health problem because of the grave and dire consequences for people and their health in these ways.
JOHN YANG: In your view, whatús at stake in this case?
CHARLEY WILLISON: There are many things at stake in this case, but I would say probably the most important thing is again, going back to this tension, where cities have placed a lot of very robust resources in these punitive responses to homelessness.
Now, if they are allowed to continue to do this, the question will be whether or not cities will be incentivized to create these alternative solutions using housing paired with social medical services, which we know actually successfully ends homelessness.
However, if the court rules in favor of Johnson, we I think this is a very big opportunity for cities to engage in these evidence based solutions and make investments especially in West Coast cities, where they have not previously done so, so that we may actually successfully reduce and end homelessness.
JOHN YANG: Charley Willison of Cornell University.
Thank you very much.
CHARLEY WILLISON: Thank you so much.
