A Law to Criminalize Sleeping ? (Santa Cruz, West Hollywood: real estate, apartments, rent)

[RLF]

As winter approaches and the Santa Cruz, California homeless shelter at the armory opens, many are discussing the Santa Cruz sleeping ban.
The camping ban, commonly called the sleeping or blanket ban, prohibits sleeping on public property between the hours of 11 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. It is also against the law to set up cooking equipment, or to cover oneself at night with the intention of sleeping.
According to attorney Kate Wells and members of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the law is “a human rights violation which criminalizes homelessness.”
Is this law against what Jesus instructs us in Matthew 25 ? Should we fight it as Christians ?? as Humans ???
Read More:
http://reddingloavesandfishes.com/fo...hp?topic=639.0

[EscapeCalifornia]

If the ACLU really wants to help, they should require their members to let a homeless person or two set up shop in their own homes. Yeah, didn't think that would happen.

[ImRandy]

As a "Christian" teach the man to fish not fight the law.

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by ImRandy

As a "Christian" teach the man to fish not fight the law.

Sure glad the American founding fathers weren't so Christian as to not fight the law or we'd be singing God Save the Queen in Colonial America, 2008.

In any case, it sounds like Santa Cruz is looking for a crafty way to sweep "the least among us" out of sight and mind. It won't work.

[kidcanaduh]

Solving homelessness is simple. Every city has 100s of millions, and in some cases a billion dollars tied up in public housing units. The tenants pay no property taxes to the city. The city employs hundreds of people to manage the properties. The city also provides fire and police protection services for free.

Prices are high today so the following figures might need adjusting, but the concept would work. The current owned city properties were purchased by the city at much lower costs than their current value, so the city has room to bargain. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume a city has 225 million dollars in public housing.

The city should sell all current units to the people who live in them. There would be no money down, no legal fees and a 10 % discount (or more) from the market price. For example a 100,000 dollar apartment will be sold to the occupant for 90,000 dollars (or 80k). There is no money down and no legal fees for the buyer. Every city has in house legal staff who are already being paid a salary so there is no additional cost.

Apartments would now become condos.

Should a residence miss two payments the property automatically reverts back to city ownership and the resident is evicted. Should the resident not do proper maintenance to the property they would also be evicted and ownership reverts back to the city.

Ownership of these properties would build self esteem in the person and instead of paying rent to the city and owning nothing they would have a mortgage payment and own a home. They could take in a student or a roommate to help pay the bills. As the property value increases so does their net worth and self esteem. These new owners would also become new property tax payers. The city currently receive no property tax dollars from every publicly owned property.

Once the 225 million dollars of housing is sold at a 10% discount the city would have 220 million dollars to build more new houses. Once this new lot of homes is sold the city would recover 198 million bucks to build more homes. This process can be repeated until there is no money left. Buld, sell, build, sell. etc.

At the end of the process the city would build nearly 2 billion dollars in new housing.

It would create hundreds of jobs over the next few years.

It would reduce unemployment and welfare payouts and processing fees.

It would create some 20,000 new homes and property tax payers for a revenue win fall.

The city would drastically reduce city staff who currently work managing public housing.

This would all reduce the city's current operating expenses, and thus reduce everyones current property taxes.

The city would expand its local economy when the new employees building the houses spend their earnings in the city.

This would create new sales, gas and income tax revenue for the state and federal government when the new employee's earnings are spent.

By generating new virgin revenue for senior levels of government the city would place itself in a position to receive more in grand aid from those senior governments.

Some of the city employees affected would not be unemployed, they would be redeployed to other jobs. Many would still be employed in housing as inspectors and to provide the new home owners assistance.

The city would have enough homes for the homeless or cash to build a proper homeless shelter.

The city would eventually recoup its current 225 million $ investment in housing when the new residences pay property taxes. Money city's are not recouping now, and never will under the current set up.

Residence who move or want to sell their homes must sell them back to the city at 10% below the market value plus pay all legal real estate transaction expenses for both parties. Just like the city did for them when they bought the property from the city.

I believe this win - win plan is bulletproof.

[notmeofficer]

Sounds like socialism to me... but I begrudgingly think your idea would be worth considering

California attracts homeless because of the weather and liberalism...

I dont see to many homeless walking around North Dakota...

"Sleeping" can be considered a crime when coupled with other acts.. for example sleeping on a bus bench... theres a legit reason for such a law.. and we use them with great discretion... usually theres another law thats more appropriate..

Worked West Hollywood station for a number of years,,, always had to deal with homeless issues..the residents didnt want them crapping on their front lawns.. dont blame them... city did a pretty good job with vouchers and outreach... had a guy I watched for awhile who had no shoes.. so one day I bought him a pair.. next day he was in the booking cage,, when I asked why,, he had been arrested by other deputies for burglary... he didnt do one before because he couldnt run fast enough without shoes.. he was just a stone criminal.. sure he was mentally ill.. but he was also a crook

The "homeless" problem in the US could be better addressed by proper mental health counseling and some tough love for those dopers/street hustlers/crooks who prey upon the rest of us while whining "homeless"...

You can bust bricks down by the L.A. Mission and make enough to live on the street comfortably... do people?.. not many.. Panhandling and pimping is way easier.. and more lucrative

Now the only thing I give away is food and vouchers to the mission.... which I do regularly

The "true" homeless that are destitute because of mental illness, sickness, or injury should be helped.. the others.. no way... offer them WORK..

[Fat Freddy]

The residents of public housing are poor, not stupid or crazy.

Who in their right mind would want to buy a "condo" in a public housing project?

Even if they did go for the idea, giving a $90,000 loan to a person who is so poor that they have to live in public housing doesn't make sense, not even for the government.

[kidcanaduh]

Originally Posted by kidcanaduh

Solving homelessness is simple.

Once the 225 million dollars of housing is sold at a 10% discount the city would have 220 million dollars to build more new houses. Once this new lot of homes is sold the city would recover 198 million bucks to build more homes. This process can be repeated until there is no money left. Buld, sell, build, sell. etc.

I'm famous for my typos.

If you had 225 million in housing and sold it at 10% off, you would not be left with 220 million. That was a typo. You'd have 203 million left. Then 180ish. Then 160ish. etc. Build, sell, build, sell, build, sell, etc. until there is no money left.

If every city across America did this, they'd add a trillion dollars or more to the economy, they'd create thousands of jobs, whichs adds even more to the economy, they'd add hundreds of thousands of new property ratepayers to city tax rolls, which would reduce your property taxes, and they'd reduced homelessness everywhere.

Instead of hundreds of thousands of homeless, low and no income people draining the treasury, they'd be contributing to it.

[Deadcowkid]

Hi Folks,
I was happy to find this thread. I will play nice promise.
Its an idea about selling affordable housing, for some areas maybe. Santa Cruz is 95% built out according to the talking heads on our City Council. Where will we build these houses and how will you get the people to go along let alone our City Council and the people currently in the houses? But its an out of the box approach which is what we need. Bravo for the idea. I mean that. Most people don't take the time to think of new ideas.
We cant get our council to do much. Public opinion has done little to sway the council. But I have to say, land power in the hands of city councils across America doesn't not give me warm and fuzzy feelings.

Poverty issues continue to be treated with the same tactics, while were supposed to expect different results, the basic definition of insanity.

Locally, Coonerty's new 15 min Public Parking Lot Trespass law is another law aimed selectively at the poor , just as the Nighttime Sleeping Ban. Our city spends more of our money chasing around the homeless, citing them, and forcing them further into poverty than we do to helping them -- with new dignified ideas not the same old ones. We could lead the nation instead of ranking the 15th worst city in its treatment of the homeless, due to these laws and others that criminalize poverty. We are squeezing them into a tighter a tighter box, as we pass laws that say you can sit here, or be within 10 feet of there. You squeeze hard enough and eventually, Boom!

The face of poverty is not defined by the few hundred people downtown. out of the 1500 to 2000 we have. Not that they are the more or less of a problem, they are the most desperate and seen, and poverty should always be seen. Here is a petition against the 15 minute trespass law if you agree its wrong. I hope giving websites out in comments is allowed. I am new on this forum. Sorry for the long rant.
This just takes a second.
[url=http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/End-the-15-minute-Trespass-law]Care2 :The Petition Site : Restore the Right of[/url]
Peace
Tim Rumford

[MaggieZ]

You also have to devise a plan to care for the working poor who are one paycheck away from homelessness. Otherwise more homeless will be coming to a downtown near you.