Your thoughts about this proposed California bill? (crime, attorneys)

[Kafkaesque]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Once again, I do not agree. I hope anyone that feels so strongly will open their own wallet and door first before forcing others to do the same. This bill goes beyond public bathrooms.

We will have to agree to disagree then.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by rkwalton

And where did I say that?

I said I don't want a law telling me that if I walk up on someone sleeping in my doorway that it would be against the law for me to tell them to move or to call the police if they refuse to move.

I said that I think the homeless should be treated as humanely as possible and ended my post by saying the law was misguided.

You essentially said you aren't happy with this bill. That's why I said "someone" instead of "you". However, I'm sure there are people on here that feel homeless deserve to sleep and rest on the sidewalks, as long as it isn't in front of their house or business.

Say you own a business and a homeless person is sleeping on the sidewalk outside. He has the right under this bill to keep all his belongings on the sidewalk and as long as he isn't being publicly drunk etc he/she is allowed to camp there. If he/she poops in front of your business, he will be appointed an attorney paid by the state to fight the ticket. This is ridiculous and if it is approved, the original bill could be added later where they have the right to use private bathrooms.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by sav858

... You really don't get what maintenance costs are on public restrooms do you?...

Originally Posted by sav858

... In case you didn't realize that costs a lot more money to do.

Originally Posted by sav858

Umm NO genius. I guess you don't get that there are people that deal with budgets and facilities management that do require a degree. I'm clearly more aware than you if think that it's only "janitors" that deal with this issue. But you live in a van and sail around on a boat so I don't expect you to understand much about reality

Originally Posted by sav858

And apparently even when some people supposedly have "multiple degrees" they're still too obtuse to realize that there are skilled positions that require degrees where this may be one of many aspects/duties of their position, albeit a small one.

Originally Posted by sav858

When you come with an educated response let me know. Again, I don't care about your life story. Perhaps senility has started to set in at this point, that would explain a lot.

No one ever said it did but go ahead and keep pretending I claimed that in order to make more asinine statements.

Now, if you review your repetitive statements about how I couldn't know about the costs of maintaining bathrooms as well as you do -- and you defer to "people that deal with budgets and facilities management that do require a degree" ... well, one might guess you think bathroom maintenance a pretty sophisticated undertaking. You also threw in comments about my grasp of reality. I merely brought you up to speed. Pretty obvious my grasp of reality is far greater than yours. As for "senility", it doesn't run in my family on either side ... and both sides tend to live a very long time ... often over 100. I'm not even close yet, sonny.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Now, if you review your repetitive statements about how I couldn't know about the costs of maintaining bathrooms as well as you do -- and you defer to "people that deal with budgets and facilities management that do require a degree" ... well, one might guess you think bathroom maintenance a pretty sophisticated undertaking. You also threw in comments about my grasp of reality. I merely brought you up to speed. .

I suppose reading comprehension isn't your strong suit as you keep focusing on some imaginary specialized position that only deals with the management of restrooms. I thought my statements were fairly straight forward and simple, perhaps next time I will remember to dumb it down for you. You asked me how I would know about costs, I explained it to you and then you went of on an argumentative tangent. Apparently my straight forward answer wasn't enough for you to accept so you needed a new angle to argue about.

Pretty obvious my grasp of reality is far greater than yours. As for "senility", it doesn't run in my family on either side ... and both sides tend to live a very long time ... often over 100. I'm not even close yet, sonny

Well if that helps you sleep better at night go ahead and continue to believe and live that lie

[scrantiX]

Originally Posted by sav858

I was clearly referring to just the homeless issue and not saying SF was a cesspool in general. But to answer your question, YES I do, I strongly prefer moderate politicians over left wing whackjobs. But SF is SF and that's fine, just keep that crap in your own city and stop trying to force the rest of the state to adopt your idiotic policies and laws like this one.

I dont see whats wrong with this bill? Although am relieved that they scaled it back from private properties, that is going to far but I think a bill of rights for the homeless is needed in CA.

Is there a reason you cut out the rest of that sentence like you always do?

I knew what you meant, you were obviously talking about politics. My issue with your post is that I dont understand how this could be a bad bill?

Its public service. Are the homeless not people too?

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by sav858

I suppose reading comprehension isn't your strong suit as you keep focusing on some imaginary specialized position that only deals with the management of restrooms. I thought my statements were fairly straight forward and simple, perhaps next time I will remember to dumb it down for you. You asked me how I would know about costs, I explained it to you and then you went of on an argumentative tangent. Apparently my straight forward answer wasn't enough for you to accept so you needed a new angle to argue about.

Well if that helps you sleep better at night go ahead and continue to believe and live that lie

I never asked you how you would know about costs. I asked why you thought you would know more about that than me or anybody else. I asked what did you think was so damn sophisticated about the problem. It's not sophisticated. It's simple. It takes money to manage. Anybody can see that ... nothing tricky ... and it needs to be done for public health's sake as well as the homeless' needs.

There's money for all manner of nonsense in our world, but not for basic sanitation? Our government, and others, finance sanitation projects all around the third-world. We don't allow cruel or inhumane punishment or conditions in our prisons. But we tell the small homeless population on our streets that they should hit the state line and pee on the other side?

You asked me what are the costs of homelessness. I gave you links to that information. Guessing you didn't really want to know? You haven't commented one bit about the costs of NOT providing sanitation, and other, services for the homeless. Public health affects all of us. Even you. It costs money. The world is awash in money.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by scrantiX

I dont see whats wrong with this bill? Although am relieved that they scaled it back from private properties, that is going to far but I think a bill of rights for the homeless is needed in CA.

I knew what you meant, you were obviously talking about politics. My issue with your post is that I dont understand how this could be a bad bill?

Its public service. Are the homeless not people too?

I don't see why homeless people need their own special set of rights. I don't think homeless people should be able to set up camp wherever they feel like including public spaces that our tax dollars pay for. Or that cities should be required to set up "health and hygiene centers" for them, since when is that some sort of "right"? I could on and on but just read through the thread, read the comments on SFgate from the article, if you'r curious to why people are against this. It's really not hard to understand. Despite my opposition to law I can easily see why bleeding hearts think this is a good idea.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

The world is awash in money.

Local governments aren't though and that's what I was originally alluding to clearly. And please spare me your tired bleeding heart/Robin Hood rant about the rich, the poor, blah blah blah...I don't care nor agree with it.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by sav858

Local governments aren't though and that's what I was originally alluding to clearly. And please spare me your tired bleeding heart/Robin Hood rant about the rich, the poor, blah blah blah...I don't care nor agree with it.

And that is exactly why we are in this situation. Thank you.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

And that is exactly why we are in this situation. Thank you.

No not at all. That's the problem with ideologues like yourself, you think if everything worked how you want it to we wouldn't have these problems. Arrogance at its finest.