titel von journey time 3

mikeladano.com

Record store tales, grab a stack of rock & music reviews.

REVIEW: Journey – Time3 (1992 box set)

Very few box sets satisfy the way that Journey’s Time 3 satisfies.  When it was released in 1992, Journey wasn’t even a functioning entity anymore.  Sony’s box set still represents the kind of care and attention to detail that makes for an extraordinary listen.  It is arranged (mostly) chronologically with ample rare and unreleased material.  What is most remarkable is how great this rare and unreleased material is.  Aerosmith did a similar looking box set in 1992 as well ( Pandora’s Box ), but their set isn’t as steady a listen as Time 3 is.   Time 3 ‘s ample wealth of worthwhile rarities rank it easily as the superior set.

From start to bitter 80’s breakup, every Journey member from 1975 to 1986 is included.  George Tickner, Aynsley Dunbar, Robert Fleischman, Randy Jackson, Mike Baird and anybody else you may not have known were in Journey are represented in this box.  There are ample liner notes and photos explaining the roots and branches.  (Humorously the notes claim the early Journey instrumental “Nickel & Dime” may have been the prototype that Rush ripped off for “Tom Sawyer”.)  Valuable early rarities include the unreleased jazz rock number “Cookie Duster” and an excellent vocal track called “For You” recorded  with Robert Fleischman singing.  Fleischman might be best known as the original singer for Vinnie Vincent’s Invasion a decade later, but in Journey he turned in a pretty powerful pop rock song.  This was just before Steve Perry joined the band as its first full-time lead singer.  Keyboardist Gregg Rolie took care of the vocals before Perry joined, in addition to performing several smoking organ solos included herein.

There is a distinct change between the early progressive jam rock tracks and “For You”.  When they hired on a lead singer, it was with the intention to get a big break, and Steve Perry was the final ingredient.  With Perry they recorded brilliant classics such as “Patiently”, “Anytime” and the unforgettable “Wheel in the Sky”, which unfortunately is only included here as a live version.  Indeed, the Journey box set’s only weakness is a substitution of (non-rare) live versions for studio originals.  “Lights” is another such substitution.

Just as the band were making this prog-to-pop transition, drummer Aynsley Dunbar left.  His style was more progressive and frankly too highbrow for the direction Journey were going.  He was replaced by another total pro, the feel-oriented Steve Smith, a jazzbo at heart who can play R&B like nobody’s business.  “Too Late” from 1979’s Evolution is a perfect example of what he did to the Journey sound, as things simplified.

With Smith behind the kit, the hits kept pouring in.  “Lovin’ Touchin’ Squeezin'” (also included live), “Any Way You Want It”, “Line of Fire” and many more burned up speakers across America.  The band very quickly went from “point A” to “point B”, but also with several exceptional looks backward.  Some of these lesser known gems include “Little Girl” from a rare Journey soundtrack album called Dream, After Dream done for the Japanese market.  There is also the live “Dixie Highway” from Captured that shows off some serious instrumental chops.  A rare highlight is the soulful and unreleased cover of “Good Times”, with full-on horn section, from 1978.  It’s one of the songs that make it worth buying a box set like this.

Rolie left after  Dream, After Dream  and did not appear on the one new Journey song on Captured :  “The Party’s Over (Hopelessly in Love)”.  This brilliant pop rocker pointed the way towards the next era of Journey.  From The Babys came new keyboardist (and sometimes guitarist and singer) Jonathan Cain.  Cain forever brought Journey into the 1980’s, with modern keyboard accompaniment and serious writing abilities.  He has since become an indisposable member of the band, as important as founding guitarist Neal Schon himself.  Jon Cain’s first was the Escape album, which has sold nine million copies to date.  Not a bad little debut.  With “Don’t Stop Believin'” , “Stone in Love” and the smash ballad “Open Arms”, Journey ascended to the top of the mountain.  These tracks are all included as their studio originals.

There are a number of notable and great rarities from this period included in  Time 3 .  “Natural Thing” was the soul-laden B-side to “Don’t Stop Believin'”, but feast your ears upon “La Raza Del Sol”, which snuck out as the progressive flipside of “Still They Ride”.  This blazingly recalls the arrangements of the early years with an unusually contemoplative lyric.  Check out Schon’s flamenco guitar solo.  There is the understated and brilliant rocker “Only Solutions”, from the 1982 Tron soundtrack.  These are valuable songs, that any Journey fan should enjoy completely.  Moving forward, “All That Really Matters” is a synthy demo with Jon Cain on lead vocals.  It doesn’t sound like Journey, but Cain fans will find it interesting.  Two more soundtrack songs are indispensable:  “Only the Young” from Vision Quest , and “Ask the Lonely” from Two of a Kind (both 1983).  Each song was significant enough to include on 1988’s Greatest Hits , so fans are well acquainted with both.  It’s incredible to think that Journey had songs of this quality to give to soundtracks.

Towards the end, as bands often do, Journey began falling apart.  Steve Perry had a hit solo debut Street Talk (1984) and he returned to Journey more confident, imposing a soul/R&B direction upon the band.  Steve Smith and founding bassist Ross Valory were out.  Randy Jackson and Mike Baird were in.   Raised on Radio took forever to record and underwhelmed fans upon reception.  A live version of “I’ll Be Alright Without You” with the new members indicates that Journey had sanded off the rough edges.

Even at the end, there were still interesting happenings.  The liner notes reveal that even as the band was ending, they were winning awards.  Journey performed at the 1987 Bay Area Music Awards with a different singer — Michael Bolton .  One has to wonder where that could have gone.  The last music on this set chronologically comes in the shape of two unreleased instrumentals called “With a Tear” and “Into Your Arms”.  They were recorded in 1986 but not used for Raised on Radio , and so they were finished in 1992 by Schon and Cain for this box set.  Sadly these instrumentals are better than most of the tracks on Raised on Radio .  One is a ballad, and one is a rocker, but both are exceptional.  Journey started life with instrumentals, and so it’s fitting that Schon and Cain polished off the box set with a couple as well.

This box set was reissued a number of times, but for the money you can’t beat the original 1992 printing with the long box and large booklet.  The liner notes are ample but the rare photos may even top them.  From the earliest days there are pictures of the band with original guitarist George Tickner and drummer Prairie Prince.  Prince was invited to join permanently, but chose to join the Tubes instead, a band he found more creative.  He was replaced by Aynsley Dunbar who recorded the first LP.  Also pictured within are some truly impressive hair styles , clothes, and moustaches.

With tracks this strong from start to finish, great packaging, and such a wealth of rare material, it seems  Time 3 should be an easy 5/5 stars.  However, that niggling issue of live tracks (particularly “Wheel in the Sky”) replacing studio cuts is really devious.  It’s unnecessary.  It all but forces casual buyers to also own Greatest Hits for the studio versions.  It seems very calculated.

Otherwise, proceed.

4.5/5 stars

Share this rock:

• Share on Tumblr

44 comments

I didn’t know Journey existed before

Like Liked by 1 person

That posted before I was done..this app! As I was saying, I didn’t know Journey existed before Steve Perry! It would be interesting to hear their earlier sound…your description reminded me a bit of Fleetwood Mac before and after. I wonder why they opted for all those live tracks. Including live and studio versions would have been great. Maybe there were licensing restrictions? Thanks for another insightful review, Mike!

According to Steve Perry they disnt exist before him.

Like Liked by 2 people

Hehehe! Wouldn’t surprise me at all if he did in fact say that. But I love Steve Perry just the same. Release something for crying out loud, Steve!

yep, Traces, can’t believe it. Ordered yours yet?

No not yet. I’ve been so busy lately! I got a new CD in the mail 2 weeks ago and haven’t opened the wrapper.

Here is one of the early Journey albums without Perry, from the 200 word series!

REVIEW: Journey – Look Into the Future (1976) #200wordchallenge

I don’t think there were any licensing restrictions on the studio tracks. They were all on the same record label. I think it comes right down to forcing people to buy another CD if they want the original. Which I did, and lots of other people too I’m sure.

I like a few Journey songs, but if I hear Lights or Don’t Stop one more time….

When the lights…go down…on the city…

You have seen Return of the Jedi, I’m sure. That scene at the end with the Emperor and the lightning and the force…

Right now I’m the one partying with Muppets.

Something very Atari about that cover! You’ve talked about this one to me before, it sounds good. I’m not in much of a Journey zone these days but when I am I’ll probably keep an eye out for this. Prairie Prince!

Really thorough review here, Mike. I’m not sure Journey are quite my cup of coffee, but I dare say there’ll be a selection of tracks that I’d dig. As for that Aerosmith box – I owned that. My first Aerosmith purchase, actually.

Nice, J. It was one of my earliest Aerosmith as well. I had Pump, Greatest Hits, Permanent Vacation and the box set.

I had the box and Big Ones. Still haven’t ever bought Pump or Permanent Vacation!

I’m not sure how to superscript the ‘3’ of Time Cube in the comments – nice to see the exponent in the album name & the 90% score!

Yeah I couldn’t do the superscript in the actual title, which was a bummer.

A very detailed and in depth discussion of Journey. I learned a lot reading this, well done!

Thanks sir! Can you imagine if Michael Bolton joined in ’87? I wish I could find a recording from that show.

That would be something to see.

I liked that song they did for ‘Glee’.

I feel like punching a wall.

The Sopranos song was better.

That is possibly my favourite TV moment. Possibly.

You know what man…this is hard to believe but I never saw the final season of Sopranos. I didn’t have cable at that time, and the DVD sets are so expensive. At this point I would pretty much have to re-watch the series to catch up again.

No! It was brilliant, I’m actually thinking about watching them all again over the next month, or so. Come over.

OK I’ll be there!

I was just telling a friend, when the complete series comes to blu-ray for around the $100 range, I will buy it. Right now I think it’s about $160.

It was the best TV series ever, a real trailblazer. They used music so damn well too.

Yup — Deep Purple’s “Stormbringer” for example. You don’t hear that song very often on TV.

It was one of my favourite shows, but I couldn’t afford to keep buying the sets. When the 5th season came out I felt so lost, so I never got caught up to the 6th.

From the seasons I saw, I thought it peaked around season 3. The episode when Paulie and Christopher are lost in the woods is my favourite of the whole series. Steve Buscemi directed that one.

The Pine Barrens – I had the same conversation with my folks last week. That episode or the one with the race horse, Pie-O-My.

I remember that Pie-O-My resulted in Joe Pantoliano’s untimely demise! Man, so many great actors on that show!

I dunno … Great review but I lost interest after Captured…The two I bought after were Greatest Hits Live and than I got fooled by that Trial By Fire debacle….. Hardline’s Double Eclipse is the album Journey should have made… My 2 cents….I mean WTF was Raised On Radio? ….

I have Raised on Radio but I never play it. It’s basically a Steve Perry solo album, too light!

Great review! I have been picking up all their albums on vinyl lately. Still need some of the earlier ones. MIchael Bolton in the band would have been awesome.

I hope one day Bolton rocks again. I want to hear that.

Is this the one you were telling me about? Because it was on my list (which wasn’t working, during our trip) and I totally forgot to look for it.

It sounds amazing.

Fear not dude I looked at each store we went to. No completely necessary Journey in any of them.

So, it’s safe to say that, on that score at least, it was an unsuccessful Journey…

Bwahahahah! This guy….

Affirmative.

What a great video! So 80s! At the time, I dismissed Journey in favour of serious music like the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Rush, Jethro Tull, the Moody Blues, but in retrospect enjoy them as a non-guilty pleasure (like Foreigner, etc). The blokes had moved to narrower trousers and shorter head and facial hair, but still recognizably 70s and no trace of punk, disco, new wave. But the girl is everything bad about 80s fashion rolled into one. Faced with her, I would choose separate ways as well!

And who said “Thriller” was the first video with great choreography?

Thanks for recommending this. Really liking this. Listening to disc 2 at the moment…Don’t stop believing…

Disc 2 is awesome! A few too many live tracks? Bah who cares right?

Rock a Reply Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Time3 [Time Cubed]

STREAM OR BUY:

Release Date

Recording date, discography timeline, allmusic review, user reviews, track listing, similar albums, moods and themes.

December 1, 1992 55 Songs, 3 hours, 47 minutes ℗ This compilation (P) 1992 Sony Music Entertainment

Music Videos

More by journey, featured on.

Apple Music Classic Rock

Apple Music Pop

Apple Music ’80s

Apple Music Family

You Might Also Like

Steve Perry

Bad Company

REO Speedwagon

Select a country or region

Africa, middle east, and india.

• Côte d’Ivoire
• Congo, The Democratic Republic Of The
• Guinea-Bissau
• Niger (English)
• Congo, Republic of
• Saudi Arabia
• Sierra Leone
• South Africa
• Tanzania, United Republic Of
• Turkmenistan
• United Arab Emirates

Asia Pacific

• Indonesia (English)
• Lao People's Democratic Republic
• Malaysia (English)
• Micronesia, Federated States of
• New Zealand
• Papua New Guinea
• Philippines
• Solomon Islands
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• France (Français)
• Deutschland
• Luxembourg (English)
• Moldova, Republic Of
• North Macedonia
• Portugal (Português)
• Türkiye (English)
• United Kingdom

Latin America and the Caribbean

• Antigua and Barbuda
• Argentina (Español)
• Bolivia (Español)
• Virgin Islands, British
• Cayman Islands
• Chile (Español)
• Colombia (Español)
• Costa Rica (Español)
• República Dominicana
• Ecuador (Español)
• El Salvador (Español)
• Guatemala (Español)
• Honduras (Español)
• Nicaragua (Español)
• Paraguay (Español)
• St. Kitts and Nevis
• Saint Lucia
• St. Vincent and The Grenadines
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Turks and Caicos
• Uruguay (English)
• Venezuela (Español)

The United States and Canada

• Canada (English)
• Canada (Français)
• United States
• Estados Unidos (Español México)
• الولايات المتحدة
• États-Unis (Français France)
• Estados Unidos (Português Brasil)
• 美國 (繁體中文台灣)

• FAQs/Dokumentation
• Shopping-Guide
• # A B C D E
• F G H I J K
• L M N O P Q
• R S T U V W

Journey Time 3 3-CD, 1996, Best-Of, Remastered

Warum sind die Cover-Bilder verpixelt?

Bedankt euch bei deutschen Abmahn-Anwälten

Leider passiert es immer wieder, dass Abmahnungen für angebliche Copyright-Verletzungen ins Haus flattern. Ganz häufig ist es der Fall, dass auf dem Frontcover ein Foto oder eine Grafik eines Fotografen oder Künstlers genutzt wird, was dann nur mit dem Namen der Band und dem Titel des Albums versehen wurde. Das ursprüngliche Foto/Kunstwerk ist somit immer noch sehr prominent zu sehen. Die Abmahner nutzen zumeist automatisierte Prozesse, die das Netz nach unlizensierten Nutzungen der Werke ihrer Mandanten durchsuchen und dabei Abweichungen bis zu einem gewissen Prozentgrad ignorieren. Somit gibt es also häufig angebliche Treffer. Obwohl das Foto/Kunstwerk von den Plattenfirmen oder Bands ganz legal für die Veröffentlichung lizensiert wurde, ist dies den Abmahnern egal, ganz oft wissen die ja nicht einmal, was für eine einzelne Veröffentlichung abgemacht wurde. Die sehen nur die angebliche Copyright-Verletzung und fordern die dicke Kohle.

Da Musik-Sammler.de nachwievor von privater Hand administriert, betrieben und bezahlt wird, ist jede Abmahnung ein existenzbedrohendes Risiko. Nach der letzten Abmahnung, die einen 5-stelligen(!) Betrag forderte, sehe ich mich nun gezwungen drastische Maßnahmen zu ergreifen oder die Seite komplett aufzugeben. Daher werden jetzt alle hochgeladenen Bilder der Veröffentlichungen für NICHT-EINGELOGGTE Nutzer verpixelt. Wer einen Musik-Sammler.de Nutzeraccount hat, braucht sich also einfach nur einmal anmelden und sieht wieder alles wie gewohnt.

Technische Realisation: "PHP Music Script" 10.2.1; © 2002 - 2024 by Frank Ehrlacher

55 SONGS • 3 HOURS AND 47 MINUTES • DEC 01 1992

• TRACKS TRACKS
• DETAILS DETAILS

Journey's blend of melodic hard rock, unshakeable anthemic hooks, and epic balladry helped define the sound of radio rock while accumulating 25 gold- and platinum-certified albums. The San Francisco-based act left behind progressive beginnings with the arrival of vocalist Steve Perry in 1976 on the group's fourth LP, Infinity, starting Journey's ascension to mainstream rock royalty. Between 1978 and 1987, the band notched a string of singles ("Wheel in the Sky," "Any Way You Want It," "Lights," "Lovin', Touchin', Squeezin'," "Don't Stop Believing," "Open Arms," "Separate Ways [Worlds Apart]"), whose huge guitars, soaring vocals, and singalong choruses have become permanent fixtures in the classic rock radio lexicon. A long hiatus preceded the release of 1996's Trial by Fire, which would serve as Perry's last outing with the group. Since then, Journey has remained a going concern for founding guitarist Neil Schon, who has led the band through two lead singers -– Steve Augeri from 1998 to 2006, and Arnel Pineda since 2007 -– and five more studio albums including Arrival (2001), Revelation (2008), and Freedom (2022).

Journey was formed in 1973 by Neal Schon (a music prodigy who had been a member of Santana), bassist Ross Valory, drummer Prairie Prince (replaced by Aynsley Dunbar), and guitarist George Tickner (who left after the first album). Another former Santana member, keyboard player and singer Gregg Rolie, joined shortly afterward. This lineup recorded Journey (1975), the first of three moderate-selling jazz-rock albums (Journey, Look Into the Future, and Next) essentially given over to instrumentals. By 1977, the band was looking to emulate the rock radio dominance of contemporaries like Foreigner and Boston. They conscripted Bay Area singer Steve Perry, whose soulful, Sam Cooke-inspired tenor would become the key to unlocking mainstream success. The results were immediately felt upon the release of 1978's Infinity, which sold a million copies within a year and included the hits "Wheel in the Sky" and "Lights" -– by this time, Dunbar had been replaced by Steve Smith. Evolution (1979) was similarly successful, yielding the band's first Top 40 hit with "Lovin', Touchin', Squeezin'," as was Departure (1980), which became one of the group's highest-charting efforts. The LP would serve as the last studio appearance by Rolie, who assisted in choosing his replacement, keyboardist and rhythm guitarist Jonathan Cain, formerly of the Babys.

Following a live album, Captured (1981), Journey released Escape, which rocketed them to the upper echelons of pop stardom by scoring three Top Ten hits ("Who's Crying Now," "Open Arms," and "Don't Stop Believing") the latter of which would become the most iconic song in their catalog. The album topped the charts and sold millions -- in July 2021, it was certified diamond by the RIAA. Frontiers (1983), featuring the hit "Separate Ways," was another big success, after which Perry released the double-platinum solo album Street Talk (1984). When the group got back together to make a new album, Valory and Smith were no longer in the lineup. The resulting Raised on Radio (1986) was created by Schon, Perry, and Cain, along with bassist Randy Jackson and renowned session drummer Larrie Londin. Certified double-platinum, the LP included the hit singles "Girl Can't Help It," "Be Good to Yourself," "Suzanne," and "I'll Be Alright Without You."

Following the tour, tensions were running high and Journey disbanded. Perry went into a prolonged period of seclusion as Schon and Cain formed Bad English with vocalist John Waite. Bad English had several hit singles, including the chart-topper "When I See You Smile," before breaking up. Perry returned to recording in 1994, releasing For the Love of Strange Medicine. Although the album went gold, it was a commercial disappointment by previous standards. In 1996, Perry, Schon, Cain, Valory, and Smith staged a Journey reunion, releasing the million-selling Trial by Fire, which featured the Top 20 single "When You Love a Woman," and going on tour. Perry and Smith opted out of the reunion after the tour. Still, Journey continued, hiring a new lead singer, Steve Augeri (formerly of Tall Stories), and a new drummer, Bad English's Deen Castronovo, who made their debuts on "Remember Me," a track on the 1998 Armageddon soundtrack. Arrival, Journey's 11th studio album, was released in April 2001 and followed by a national tour. The LP reached number 56 on the Billboard 200.

The band received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on January 21, 2005. That same year, they released a new album, Generations, and embarked on a 30th anniversary tour. Shows on the tour stretched over three hours and were divided into two sets -- one focusing on pre-Escape material, the other on post-Escape material. The archival release Live in Houston 1981: The Escape Tour appeared in 2006, the same year the group brought Jeff Scott Soto aboard as a replacement for Augeri, who developed a throat infection that prevented him from singing.

However, Soto's time with the band was limited; in 2007, Journey announced that they had parted ways with the singer and once again sought a frontman. They found him in Arnel Pineda, a Filipino vocalist Schon discovered after seeing him perform the Journey ballad "Faithfully" online. Pineda made his debut with the group in 2008, the same year they released Revelation. Fueled by the adult contemporary hit "After All These Years," Revelation was a surprise hit that wound up going platinum. Journey returned in the summer of 2011 with Eclipse, a concept album that saw the band tie together its progressive rock beginnings with its '80s arena rock peak. 2013 saw the release of Don't Stop Believin': Everyman's Journey, a documentary chronicling Pineda's discovery and first year with the group. In 2017, Journey was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, and in 2022 they released Freedom, their 15th studio effort and their third outing with Pineda. It also marked the return of Raised on Radio bassist Randy Jackson, who stepped in after the band's split with Ross Valory in 2020. ~ James Christopher Monger & William Ruhlmann

How are ratings calculated?

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Become an Amazon Hub Partner
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

TED Radio Hour

• Subscribe to Breaking News Alerts

So Awkward: Embracing life's embarrassing moments

Forgetting a name, a poorly executed hug, the 7th grade — awkwardness is part of our lives whether we like it or not. But what if we put the embarrassment aside and embraced our awkward selves?

Why the world needs socially awkward people

by  Manoush Zomorodi ,  James Delahoussaye ,  Sanaz Meshkinpour

A cartoonist's guide to navigating 'normal'

by  Manoush Zomorodi ,  Katie Monteleone ,  Fiona Geiran ,  Sanaz Meshkinpour

Stop judging yourself and embrace your cringe

by  Manoush Zomorodi ,  Matthew Cloutier ,  Sanaz Meshkinpour

Sex ed is awkward. But it doesn't have to be

by  Manoush Zomorodi ,  Harsha Nahata ,  Sanaz Meshkinpour

• See TED Radio Hour sponsors and promo codes

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

The Supreme Court Takes Up Homelessness

Can cities make it illegal to live on the streets.

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Katrin Bennhold. This is “The Daily.”

This morning, we’re taking a much closer look at homelessness in the United States as it reaches a level not seen in the modern era. California —

As the number of homeless people has surged in the US —

More than 653,000, a 12 percent population increase since last year.

The debate over homeless encampments across the country has intensified.

It is not humane to let people live on our streets in tents, use drugs. We are not standing for it anymore.

People have had it. They’re fed up. I’m fed up. People want to see these tents and encampments removed in a compassionate, thoughtful way. And we agree.

With public officials saying they need more tools to address the crisis.

We move from block to block. And every block they say, can’t be here, can’t be here, can’t be here. I don’t know where we’re supposed to go, you know?

And homeless people and their advocates saying those tools are intended to unfairly punish them.

They come and they sweep and they take everything from me, and I can’t get out of the hole I’m in because they keep putting me back in square one.

That debate is now reaching the Supreme Court, which is about to hear arguments in the most significant case on homelessness in decades, about whether cities can make it illegal to be homeless. My colleague Abbie VanSickle on the backstory of that case and its far-reaching implications for cities across the US.

[THEME MUSIC]

It’s Friday, April 19.

So Abbie, you’ve been reporting on this case that has been making waves, Grants Pass versus Johnson, which the Supreme Court is taking up next week. What’s this case about?

So this case is about a small town in Oregon where three homeless people sued the city after they received tickets for sleeping and camping outside. And this case is the latest case that shows this growing tension, especially in states in the West, between people who are homeless and cities who are trying to figure out what to do about this. These cities have seen a sharp increase in homeless encampments in public spaces, especially with people on sidewalks and in parks. And they’ve raised questions about public drug use and other safety issues in these spaces.

And so the question before the justices is really how far a city can go to police homelessness. Can city officials and police use local laws to ban people from laying down outside and sleeping in a public space? Can a city essentially make it illegal to be homeless?

So three homeless people sued the city of Grants Pass, saying it’s not illegal to be homeless, and therefore it’s not illegal to sleep in a public space.

Yes, that’s right. And they weren’t the first people to make this argument. The issue actually started years ago with a case about 500 miles to the East, in Boise, Idaho. And in that case, which is called Martin v. Boise, this man, Robert Martin, who is homeless in Boise, he was charged with a misdemeanor for sleeping in some bushes. And the city of Boise had laws on the books to prohibit public camping.

And Robert Martin and a group of other people who are homeless in the city, they sued the city. And they claimed that the city’s laws violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

And what makes it cruel and unusual?

So their argument was that the city did not have enough sufficient shelter beds for everyone who was homeless in the city. And so they were forced to sleep outside. They said, we have no place to go and that an essential human need is to sleep and we want to be able to lay down on the sidewalk or in an alley or someplace to rest and that their local laws were a violation of Robert Martin and the others’ constitutional rights, that the city is violating the Eighth Amendment by criminalizing the human need to sleep.

And the courts who heard the case agreed with that argument. The courts ruled that the city had violated the Constitution and that the city could not punish people for being involuntarily homeless. And what that meant, the court laid out, is that someone is involuntarily homeless if a city does not have enough adequate shelter beds for the number of people who are homeless in the city.

It does seem like a very important distinction. They’re saying, basically, if you have nowhere else to go, you can’t be punished for sleeping on the street.

Right. That’s what the court was saying in the Martin v. Boise case. And the city of Boise then appealed the case. They asked the Supreme Court to step in and take it on. But the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. So since then, the Martin v. Boise case controls all over the Western parts of the US in what’s called the Ninth Circuit, which includes Oregon where the Grants Pass case originated.

OK. So tell us about Grants Pass, this city at the center of the case and now in front of the Supreme Court. What’s the story there?

Grants Pass is a town in rural Southwestern Oregon. It’s a town of about 38,000 people. It’s a former timber town that now really relies a lot on tourists to go rafting through the river and go wine tasting in the countryside. And it’s a pretty conservative town.

When I did interviews, people talked about having a very strong libertarian streak. And when I talked with people in the town, people said when they were growing up there, it was very rare to see someone who was homeless. It just was not an issue that was talked a lot about in the community. But it did become a big issue about 10 years ago.

People in the community started to get worried about what they saw as an increase in the number of homeless people that they were noticing around town. And it’s unclear whether the problem was growing or whether local officials and residents were worried that it might, whether they were fearing that it might.

But in any case, in 2013, the city council decided to start stepping up enforcement of local ordinances that did things like outlaw camping in public parks or sleeping outside, this series of overlapping local laws that would make it impossible for people to sleep in public spaces in Grants Pass. And at one meeting, one of the former city council members, she said, “the point is to make it uncomfortable enough for them in our city so they will want to move on down the road.”

So it sounds like, at least in Grants Pass, that this is not really about reducing homelessness. It’s about reducing the number of visible homeless people in the town.

Well, I would say that city officials and many local residents would say that the homeless encampments are actually creating real concerns about public safety, that it’s actually creating all kinds of issues for everyone else who lives in Grants Pass. And there are drug issues and mental health issues, and that this is actually bringing a lot of chaos to the city.

OK. So in order to deal with these concerns, you said that they decided to start enforcing these local measures. What does that actually look like on the ground?

So police started handing out tickets in Grants Pass. These were civil tickets, where people would get fines. And if police noticed people doing this enough times, then they could issue them a trespass from a park. And then that would give — for a certain number of days, somebody would be banned from the park. And if police caught them in the park before that time period was up, then the person could face criminal time. They could go to jail.

And homeless people started racking up fines, hundreds of dollars of fines. I talked to a lot of people who were camping in the parks who had racked up these fines over the years. And each one would have multiple tickets they had no way to pay. I talked to people who tried to challenge the tickets, and they had to leave their belongings back in the park. And they would come back to find someone had taken their stuff or their things had been impounded.

So it just seemed to be this cycle that actually was entrenching people more into homelessness. And yet at the same time, none of these people had left Grants Pass.

So they did make it very uncomfortable for homeless people, but it doesn’t seem to be working. People are not leaving.

Right. People are not leaving. And these tickets and fines, it’s something that people have been dealing with for years in Grants Pass. But in 2018, the Martin v. Boise case happens. And not long after that, a group of people in Grants Pass challenged these ordinances, and they used the Boise case to make their argument that just like in Boise, Grants Pass was punishing people for being involuntarily homeless, that this overlapping group of local ordinances in Grants Pass had made it so there is nowhere to put a pillow and blanket on the ground and sleep without being in some kind of violation of a rule. And this group of local homeless people make the argument that everyone in Grants Pass who is homeless is involuntarily homeless.

And you told us earlier that it was basically the lack of available shelter that makes a homeless person involuntarily homeless. So is there a homeless shelter in Grants Pass?

Well, it sort of depends on the standard that you’re using. So there is no public low-barrier shelter that is easy for somebody to just walk in and stay for a night if they need someplace to go. Grants Pass does not have a shelter like that.

There is one shelter in Grants Pass, but it’s a religious shelter, and there are lots of restrictions. I spoke with the head of the shelter who explained the purpose is really to get people back into the workforce. And so they have a 30-day program that’s really designed for that purpose.

And as part of that, people can’t have pets. People are not allowed to smoke. They’re required to attend Christian religious services. And some of the people who I interviewed, who had chronic mental health and physical disabilities, said that they had been turned away or weren’t able to stay there because of the level of needs that they have. And so if you come in with any kind of issue like that, it can be a problem.

That’s a very long list of restrictions. And of course, people are homeless for a lot of very different reasons. It sounds like a lot of these reasons might actually disqualify them from this particular shelter. So when they say they have nowhere else to go, if they’re in Grants Pass, they kind of have a point.

So that’s what the court decided. In 2022, when the courts heard this case, they agreed with the homeless plaintiffs that there’s no low-barrier shelter in Grants Pass and that the religious shelter did not meet the court’s requirements. But the city, who are actually now represented by the same lawyers who argued for Boise, keeps appealing the case. And they appeal up to the Ninth Circuit just as in the Boise case, and the judges there find in favor of the homeless plaintiffs, and they find that Grants Pass’s ordinances are so restrictive that there is no place where someone can lay down and sleep in Grants Pass and that therefore the city has violated the Eighth Amendment and they cannot enforce these ordinances in the way that they have been for years.

So at that point, the court upholds the Boise precedent, and we’re where we were when it all started. But as we know, that’s not the end of the story. Because this case stays in the court system. What happened?

So by this point, the homelessness problem is really exploding throughout the Western part of the US with more visible encampments, and it really becomes a politically divisive issue. And leaders across the political spectrum point to Boise as a root cause of the problem. So when Grants Pass comes along, people saw that case as a way potentially to undo Boise if only they could get it before the Supreme Court.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

We’ll be right back.

Abbie, you just told us that as homeless numbers went up and these homeless encampments really started spreading, it’s no longer just conservatives who want the Supreme Court to revisit the Boise ruling. It’s liberals too.

That’s right. So there’s a really broad group of people who all started pushing for the Supreme Court to take up the Grants Pass case. And they did this by filing briefs to the Supreme Court, laying out their reasoning. And it’s everyone from the liberal governor of California and many progressive liberal cities to some of the most conservative legal groups. And they disagree about their reasoning, but they all are asking the court to clarify how to interpret the Boise decision.

They are saying, essentially, that the Boise decision has been understood in different ways in all different parts of the West and that that is causing confusion and creating all sorts of problems. And they’re blaming that on the Boise case.

It’s interesting, because after everything you told us about these very extreme measures, really, that the city of Grants Pass took against homeless people, it is surprising that these liberal bastions that you’re mentioning are siding with the town in this case.

Just to be clear, they are not saying that they support necessarily the way that Grants Pass or Boise had enforced their laws. But they are saying that the court rulings have tied their hands with this ambiguous decision on how to act.

And what exactly is so ambiguous about the Boise decision? Which if I remember correctly, simply said that if someone is involuntarily homeless, if they’re on the streets because there’s no adequate shelter space available, they can’t be punished for that.

Yeah. So there are a couple of things that are common threads in the cities and the groups that are asking for clarity from the court. And the first thing is that they’re saying, what is adequate shelter? That every homeless person situation is different, so what are cities or places required to provide for people who are homeless? What is the standard that they need to meet?

In order not to sleep on the street.

That’s right. So if the standard is that a city has to have enough beds for everyone who is homeless but certain kinds of shelters or beds wouldn’t qualify, then what are the rules around that? And the second thing is that they’re asking for clarity around what “involuntarily homeless” means. And so in the Boise decision, that meant that someone is involuntarily homeless if there is not enough bed space for them to go to.

But a lot of cities are saying, what about people who don’t want to go into a shelter even if there’s a shelter bed available? If they have a pet or if they are a smoker or if something might prohibit them from going to a shelter, how is the city supposed to weigh that and at what point would they cross a line for the court?

It’s almost a philosophical question. Like, if somebody doesn’t want to be in a shelter, are they still allowed to sleep in a public space?

Yeah. I mean, these are complicated questions that go beyond the Eighth Amendment argument but that a lot of the organizations that have reached out to the court through these friend of the court briefs are asking.

OK. I can see that the unifying element here is that in all these briefs various people from across the spectrum are saying, hello, Supreme Court. We basically need some clarity here. Give us some clarity.

The question that I have is why did the Supreme Court agree to weigh in on Grants Pass after declining to take up Boise?

Well, it’s not possible for us to say for certain because the Supreme Court does not give reasons why it has agreed to hear or to not hear a case. They get thousands of cases a year, and they take up just a few of those, and their deliberations are secret. But we can point to a few things.

One is that the makeup of the court has changed. The court has gained conservative justices in the last few years. This court has not been shy about taking up hot button issues across the spectrum of American society. In this case, the court hasn’t heard a major homelessness case like this.

But I would really point to the sheer number and the range of the people who are petitioning the court to take a look at this case. These are major players in the country who are asking the court for guidance, and the Supreme Court does weigh in on issues of national importance. And the people who are asking for help clearly believe that this is one of those issues.

So let’s start digging into the actual arguments. And maybe let’s start with the city of Grants Pass. What are the central arguments that they’re expected to make before the Supreme Court?

So the city’s arguments turn on this narrow legal issue of whether the Eighth Amendment applies or doesn’t. And they say that it doesn’t. But I actually think that in some ways, that’s not the most helpful way to understanding what Grants Pass is arguing.

What is really at the heart of their argument is that if the court upholds Grants Pass and Boise, that they are tying the hands of Grants Pass and hundreds of other towns and cities to actually act to solve and respond to homelessness. And by that, I mean to solve issues of people camping in the parks but also more broadly of public safety issues, of being able to address problems as they arise in a fluid and flexible way in the varied ways that they’re going to show up in all these different places.

And their argument is if the court accepts the Grants Pass and Boise holdings, that they will be constitutionalizing or freezing in place and limiting all of these governments from acting.

Right. This is essentially the argument being repeated again and again in those briefs that you mentioned earlier, that unless the Supreme Court overturns these decisions, it’s almost impossible for these cities to get the encampments under control.

Yes, that’s right. And they also argue they need to have flexibility in dealing actually with people who are homeless and being able to figure out using a local ordinance to try to convince someone to go to treatment, that they say they need carrots and sticks. They need to be able to use every tool that they can to be able to try to solve this problem.

And how do we make sense of that argument when Grants Pass is clearly not using that many tools to deal with homeless people? For example, it didn’t have shelters, as you mentioned.

So the city’s argument is that this just should not be an Eighth Amendment issue, that this is the wrong way to think about this case, that issues around homelessness and how a city handles it is a policy question. So things like shelter beds or the way that the city is handling their ordinances should really be left up to policymakers and city officials, not to this really broad constitutional argument. And so therefore, the city is likely to focus their argument entirely on this very narrow question.

And how does the other side counter this argument?

The homeless plaintiffs are going to argue that there’s nothing in the lower courts’ decisions that say that cities can’t enforce their laws that, they can’t stop people from littering, that they can’t stop drug use, that they can’t clear encampments if there becomes public safety problems. They’re just saying that a city cannot not provide shelter and then make it illegal for people to lay down and sleep.

So both sides are saying that a city should be able to take action when there’s public disorder as a result of these homeless encampments. But they’re pointing at each other and saying, the way you want to handle homelessness is wrong.

I think everyone in this case agrees that homelessness and the increase in homelessness is bad for everyone. It’s bad for people who are camping in the park. It is bad for the community, that nobody is saying that the current situation is tenable. Everyone is saying there need to be solutions. We need to be able to figure out what to do about homelessness and how to care for people who are homeless.

How do we wrestle with all these problems? It’s just that the way that they think about it couldn’t be further apart.

And what can you tell me about how the Supreme Court is actually expected to rule in this?

There are a number of ways that the justices could decide on this case. They could take a really narrow approach and just focus on Grants Pass and the arguments about those local ordinances. I think that’s somewhat unlikely because they’ve decided to take up this case of national importance.

A ruling in favor of the homeless plaintiffs would mean that they’ve accepted this Eighth Amendment argument, that you cannot criminalize being homeless. And a ruling for the city, every legal expert I’ve talked to has said that would mean an end to Boise and that it would break apart the current state that we’ve been living in for these last several years.

I’m struck by how much this case and our conversation has been about policing homelessness rather than actually addressing the root causes of homelessness. We’re not really talking about, say, the right to shelter or the right to treatment for people who are mentally ill and sleeping on the streets as a result, which is quite a big proportion. And at the end of the day, whatever way the ruling goes, it will be about the visibility of homelessness and not the root causes.

Yeah, I think that’s right. That’s really what’s looming in the background of this case is what impact is it going to have. Will it make things better or worse and for who? And these court cases have really become this talking point for cities and for their leaders, blaming the spike in encampments and the visibility of homelessness on these court decisions. But homelessness, everyone acknowledges, is such a complicated issue.

People have told me in interviews for the story, they’ve blamed increases in homelessness on everything from the pandemic to forest fires to skyrocketing housing costs in the West Coast, and that the role that Boise and now Grants Pass play in this has always been a little hard to pin down. And if the Supreme Court overturns those cases, then we’ll really see whether they were the obstacle that political leaders said that they were. And if these cases fall, it remains to be seen whether cities do try to find all these creative solutions with housing and services to try to help people who are homeless or whether they once again fall back on just sending people to jail.

Abbie, thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Here’s what else you need to know today. Early on Friday, Israel attacked a military base in Central Iran. The explosion came less than a week after Iran’s attack on Israel last weekend and was part of a cycle of retaliation that has brought the shadow war between the two countries out in the open. The scale and method of Friday’s attack remained unclear, and the initial reaction in both Israel and Iran was to downplay its significance. World leaders have urged both sides to exercise restraint in order to avoid sparking a broader war in the region.

And 12 New Yorkers have been selected to decide Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan, clearing the way for opening statements to begin as early as Monday. Seven new jurors were added in short order on Thursday afternoon, hours after two others who had already been picked were abruptly excused.

Trump is accused of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment made to a porn star during his 2016 presidential campaign. If the jury convicts him, he faces up to four years in prison. Finally —

This is the New York Police Department.

The New York Police Department said it took at least 108 protesters into custody at Columbia University after University officials called the police to respond to a pro-Palestinian demonstration and dismantle a tent encampment.

We’re supporting Palestine. We’re supporting Palestine. 1, 2, 3, 4.

The crackdown prompted more students to vow that demonstrations would continue, expressing outrage at both the roundup of the student protesters and the plight of Palestinians in Gaza.

Free, free Palestine.

Today’s episode was produced by Olivia Natt, Stella Tan, and Eric Krupke with help from Rachelle Bonja. It was edited by Liz Baylen, fact checked by Susan Lee, contains original music by Will Reid Pat McCusker Dan Powell and Diane Wong and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Katrin Bennhold. See you on Monday.

• April 25, 2024   •   40:33 The Crackdown on Student Protesters
• April 24, 2024   •   32:18 Is $60 Billion Enough to Save Ukraine?
• April 23, 2024   •   30:30 A Salacious Conspiracy or Just 34 Pieces of Paper?
• April 22, 2024   •   24:30 The Evolving Danger of the New Bird Flu
• April 19, 2024   •   30:42 The Supreme Court Takes Up Homelessness
• April 18, 2024   •   30:07 The Opening Days of Trump’s First Criminal Trial
• April 17, 2024   •   24:52 Are ‘Forever Chemicals’ a Forever Problem?
• April 16, 2024   •   29:29 A.I.’s Original Sin
• April 15, 2024   •   24:07 Iran’s Unprecedented Attack on Israel
• April 14, 2024   •   46:17 The Sunday Read: ‘What I Saw Working at The National Enquirer During Donald Trump’s Rise’
• April 12, 2024   •   34:23 How One Family Lost $900,000 in a Timeshare Scam
• April 11, 2024   •   28:39 The Staggering Success of Trump’s Trial Delay Tactics

Hosted by Katrin Bennhold

Featuring Abbie VanSickle

Produced by Olivia Natt ,  Stella Tan ,  Eric Krupke and Rachelle Bonja

Edited by Liz O. Baylen

Original music by Will Reid ,  Pat McCusker ,  Dan Powell and Diane Wong

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music

Debates over homeless encampments in the United States have intensified as their number has surged. To tackle the problem, some cities have enforced bans on public camping.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments about whether such actions are legal, Abbie VanSickle, who covers the court for The Times, discusses the case and its far-reaching implications.

On today’s episode

Abbie VanSickle , a Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times.

Background reading

A ruling in the case could help determine how states, particularly those in the West, grapple with a rising homelessness crisis .

In a rare alliance, Democrats and Republicans are seeking legal power to clear homeless camps .

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

Fact-checking by Susan Lee .

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Katrin Bennhold is the Berlin bureau chief. A former Nieman fellow at Harvard University, she previously reported from London and Paris, covering a range of topics from the rise of populism to gender. More about Katrin Bennhold

Abbie VanSickle covers the United States Supreme Court for The Times. She is a lawyer and has an extensive background in investigative reporting. More about Abbie VanSickle

Advertisement