Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The most powerful federal appeals court in the western United States once again refused to let cities and towns force the homeless off of the streets unless communities provide shelter for them.
Cities large and small across the west coast have tried, and failed, to overturn the higher court's ruling for years, the latest of which came from the Oregon city, Grants Pass.
Okay. Pitch a couple of old surplus army tents ten miles out of town near the city landfill. Or as you say, how about the old army tents on the judge's front lawn.
Status:
"This too shall pass. But possibly, like a kidney stone."
(set 8 days ago)
35,951 posts, read 18,249,493 times
Reputation: 51023
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
Zoning laws can not be enforced?
Does that interfere with a "zoning law"? Zoning laws tend to have to do with buildings, and the use of buildings in my experience. Do they address people on the street?
This law is just saying you can't act like India, and shoo people around if they're on the streets, unless you have somewhere else they can live.
So maybe this will end the practice of cities picking up their homeless and bussing them to other areas to deal with.
Deal with your OWN homeless people, instead of shoving them off on another municipality to deal with those from your own town, and that will be a big start to ending the crisis.
As a nation we need to find a middle ground, somewhere between treating them like subhuman rats (like some places do) and treating them as if they have right to put up dwellings on our sidewalks in front of our businesses. Like they're human, in need of direction.
This thread has received very comment so far, but the zoning police in Corvallis, OR has prohibited private citizens from helping the homeless unless it is on their terms. Here is the thread:
Does that interfere with a "zoning law"? Zoning laws tend to have to do with buildings, and the use of buildings in my experience. Does address people on the street.
This law is just saying you can't act like India, and shoo people around if they're on the streets, unless you have somewhere else they can live.
So maybe this will end the practice of cities picking up their homeless and bussing them to other areas to deal with.
Deal with your OWN homeless people, instead of shoving them off on another municipality to deal with those from your own town, and that will be a big start to ending the crisis.
Having a tent city on sidewalks, in a business district sounds like a zoning issue. So, to me tossing a tent town off the street is adhering to some sort of zoning law. They are sidewalks, not a residence. Like others have mentioned, find out where these judges live and plant these people firmly and squarely in the park, in the judges upscale neighborhood.
When I lived in Tucson AZ and Orange County CA, the biggest issue I saw with homeless camps was flagrant violation of litter and public health / sanitation laws. If those two things alone are not enough to clear homeless camps off public streets and public places (like in areas surrounding Orange County courthouse in Santa Ana, CA), I don't know what is. The piles of garbage and other filth should eliminate the right of someone to camp out in public spaces in cities.
So zoning laws are one thing, and the littering and public health aspects are the other thing that should make it illegal to simply camp out in public spaces in cities and towns.
Okay. Pitch a couple of old surplus army tents ten miles out of town near the city landfill. Or as you say, how about the old army tents on the judge's front lawn.
Yes... that would be the leftist caterwaul, no doubt.
Well, with all the money we (taxpayers) already spend on the homeless problem, I don't see any reason that "colonies" could not be constructed away from productive society wherein a small shelter is provided, food rations are provided, culinary water is provided, heating/cooling is provided, etc.
BUT... no luxuries, no cars, no stupidphones, and basically no anything that a "cushy" modern lifestyle provides. Strict CCR/covenants are enforced, no drugs, no alcohol, no sleaziness, no trashing the living space, strict rules on cleanliness and yard upkeep are enforced, the entire "colony" is walled off and although the inhabitants are free to come and go as they wish, nobody comes in or goes out without being searched and cleared for entry/exit. A "job" is given to those who are able to help keep up and beautify the community.
Now, in my estimation, that living arrangement is neither cruel nor unusual, especially when it's free. Basically, one is expected to live like a normal person on the outside does (although WE all have to pay for it ourselves on the outside).
How long do you think the typical homeless person would last in such a community before he simply takes off and lives in a gutter somewhere? The vast majority of homeless people are either addicted or mentally ill, and for most, a mental institution would be the best solution, but of course, in the eyes of the left, that is cruel and unusual punishment as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
