Sympathetic to the plight of the homeless, but there needs to be enforcement of laws and respect to the neighborhood that you are living in, whether or not you are homeless.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/meeting-draws-hund...
Sympathetic to the plight of the homeless, but there needs to be enforcement of laws and respect to the neighborhood that you are living in, whether or not you are homeless.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/meeting-draws-hund...
It's not fair to the residents of the neighborhood, or people living in vehicles that are respecting the law and minding their own business.
http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-business-owner-frust...
Do you see that you're putting a value judgement on ownership of a home and attributing them with some ownership of the "neighborhood" while denying that broader sense of ownership to people choosing to reside in that neighborhood in their vehicles?
That's, if true, entirely the fault of how your state allocates revenue from vehicle license fees, not the people living in (currently licensed) cars.
I didn't say anything about the level of VLFs, I said something about the distribution of funds raised thereby.
But, yes, it's zero-sum: but if vehicles that are used more as houses are having tax revenue distributed as if they were being used more as transport, then people sleeping in cars are subsidizing drivers.
The reality is the law, as always, is lagging behind reality. Things have changed substantially in the last few decades in terms of how realistic it is to live a fairly normal and connected life from a vehicle. There is essentially no practical need for a mailing address or land line anymore for example, smart phones, internet, efficient solar panels...
Drug addicts/cooks living in squalor who happen to be in vehicles will be committing myriad obvious and easily policed crimes. Why those police are not doing their job is entirely orthogonal to if a vehicle should be considered a potential legal residence.
What incentive do people have to not lie about that? When someone loses their home, are they obligated to go to the DMV and update their registration and throw in a bunch of extra money? How do you police this? Do you have the police capacity to handle this?
How do you enforce violations? If someone is living in their car but didn't pay the registration, do you tow their car? Doesn't that get right back to the original problem?
> This could even translate into states providing facilities for pump outs and showers for those registered for vehicle dwellings to improve the sanitation of what's going to be happening regardless.
In the Seattle area, at least, there are free RV hookups for people to dump their waste. Many people just don't use them. Their vehicle may not actually be that driveable, or maybe they can't afford the gas, or maybe they simply don't care.
> There is essentially no practical need for a mailing address or land line anymore for example, smart phones, internet, efficient solar panels...
Yes, a well-adjusted, committed person can leave reasonably from a vehicle. But what about the people who live in vehicles in part because they aren't doing the work required to keep the social contract and be a participating member of society?
> Drug addicts/cooks living in squalor who happen to be in vehicles will be committing myriad obvious and easily policed crimes.
Many of these crimes aren't easily policed, actually. Drug possession requires a warrant to search a vehicle. Finding discarded paraphernalia isn't enough, nor is a witnessing drug use. Littering and waste dumping are almost impossible to police — you have to be caught in the act by a police officer.
Ignoring that, the reality is that Seattle isn't policing these.
My point is that it's a reasonable stance for people who contribute to the upkeep of a neighborhood in the form of property taxes to have a greater claim to that neighborhood than people who decided that it would be a good place to park their car or camp for the night. Not sure if you live in a neighborhood where people regularly camp out and live out of their cars, but I do and there are tons of problems with it:
1. At a fundamental level, it is unfair. People who own or rent homes in the neighborhood spend lots of money (our property taxes are $600/month) in order to contribute to the the upkeep of the neighborhood. They also generally clean up after themselves and don't steal stuff.
2. People who own or rent are also tied to the neighborhood in a way that people who camp or live in cars are not. If the neighborhood goes to shit, it's easy to pull up camp or start your car and leave; you can be out in a few hours. If you rent, it's at least a few months to find a new place to live. For homeowners, you could be looking at years, plus many thousands of dollars in broker and moving costs.
3. It's not just that homeowners contribute to the well being of the neighborhood, it's that people who camp and live in cars actively do the opposite. After the city of Portland clears the regular camping spots in my neighborhood, a team of cleaners has to come in to dispose of waste. Many people, and thus, much taxpayer expense is involved. This happens every 6-8 weeks. Guess how many times the city has ever had to clean up in a similar way after homeowners... zero.
4. But it's more than just the clean up. Campers bring tons of crime with them. There is a tent at the campsite down the street from me that is actually a bicycle chop shop! And then there's the stolen cars that get stripped and abandoned in our neighborhood on a weekly basis when there is an active campsite. Oh, and there are tons of hypodermic needles all over the ground near the campsites.
So, yeah, I think it's pretty legitimate to not think it's fair for people who follow the rules, work hard, and contribute to society to have to watch their neighborhood get torn apart by people who are A) completely uninvested in the wellbeing of the neighborhood, and B) actively contributing to it's decline.
Being a citizen is not a license to do whatever you want. Nobody argues that people should be able to ignore posted parking restrictions when it suits them. Yet the negative externalities from people camping and living in their cars are way more significant than from parking in a loading zone or not paying the meter. Just ask anybody who lives in a neighborhood with a significant homeless presence.
No, they aren't, mostly. There are probably a few that are conscientious, but over the past years, almost every RV that's gone through my neighborhood has brought problems with it.
Part of living in physical housing is that there are sewer lines to it and trash pick-up. RVs and cars don't have that. Most of those denizens are not driving halfway across town to drain their blackwater tanks or paying to dispose of their trash. Instead, the dump it out on the street before relocating.
In addition to the obvious health risk of literal human shit being dumped on the street and grass, that trash more often than not contains used needles, used toilet paper, and other dangerous stuff.
On top of that:
1. Along with piles of trash that had been jammed into the bushes, my neighbor found a discarded gun. (Fortunately he found it before his toddler did.)
2. My wife interrupted someone squatting and shitting on the ground in our alley. Multiple times.
3. We see and hear screaming matches and fights between people in and near RVs on a pretty regular basis.
4. Property theft is constant. Most of us don't ship things to our homes anymore. One friend has a giant bin with a lock on it for package delivery people to lock things in.
5. Our car has been broken into twice.
6. Someone once climbed our back fence and was wandering around the yard babbling incoherently.
7. A gas can was stolen out of the back of my truck.
> How do you know the people living in homes are respecting the law?
Let's not play the whataboutism game. That won't solve any problems.
The people living in their vehicles need real help. The city (and the country at large) has profound systemic problems around inequality, housing, healthcare, and drug addiction.
Pretending that the people living in their vehicles are law-abiding citizens whose homes happen to have wheels denies the full reality of their experience. Most of them, in addition to experiencing homelessness, are also experiencing drug addiction, often have mental illness, and are living in an environment that lacks the sewage and trash infrastructure needed for humans to live safely.
All of that needs to be addressed. These aren't just free spirits living the dream out of their VW bus. (If they do want to do that, more power to them. But they still gotta find a place for their shit and trash.)
When examining the causes and effects of issue that you'd rather not take place in your neighborhood it is essential to look at all the intersections of those issues and look at other situations where those issues are also present.
If you don't recognize the fact that a majority of those issues you listed are committed most frequently by traditionally housed people, in other neighborhood than your own, then you'll be blind to the larger systemic issues that need to be addressed to fix the problems. You'll also be much more likely to support a short-term solution that fixes your problems but not the larger problem.
I certainly didn't depersonalize or "deplatform" people.
> If you don't recognize the fact that a majority of those issues you listed are committed most frequently by traditionally housed people, in other neighborhood than your own, then you'll be blind to the larger systemic issues that need to be addressed to fix the problems.
I certainly never claimed homeless people are the only ones who commit crimes, but I am pretty confident that the homed neighbors around me do not get into screaming matches in the street, shit in my alley, jam trash in my bushes, or dump blackwater on the street.
It's not because they're better people. It's because they have access to sewers, trash pickup, and soundproof walls. Any "solution" for homeless people that lets them continue to live in an environment without the physical infrastructure — shelter, sanitation, and trash — needed to live safely isn't a real solution.
http://mynorthwest.com/152391/seattle-business-shoots-video-...?
Certainly, there is no practical way to enforce not littering. Are you going to have undercover cops patrolling around waiting for someone to drop something on the ground?
I live in a formerly-quiet neighborhood in Seattle. When my kids were 4 and 6, I had to teach them what a used needle looks like and to never ever touch one because trash like that started showing up on our street corner near parked RVs.
1. There are definitely some people living in vehicles that are not part of the drug trade as consumers and producers, and I'm very sympathetic to their plight, and supportive of them living in their vehicles if that's all they can afford.
2. There are definitely people living in vehicles that are drug addicts. I'm sympathetic to their plight, but it doesn't seem like letting them live without treatment is good for them or the surrounding community. This is a profoundly hard problem — how as a society do we deal with people whose addiction prevents them from making good life choices and upholding the social contract? How much agency should someone have when they use that agency to harm themselves and others?
3. There are definitely people living in vehicles that are drug producers and sellers. They should go to jail.
People who have strong opinions on this seem to believe only one of those categories exists, and then imagine solutions that deny the existence of the others. That's not practical. My experience from my street is that there are all three kinds, though unfortunately not many in the first group.
I care about the rights and life of people in these dire straits, but I also care about my own rights and those of my family. I'd like my children to be able to play in the yard without worrying about them rolling onto a dirty needle. I'd like my wife to be able to garden without finding trash and sewage in the bushes.
Even if someone is 100% supportive of letting people experiencing homelessness get by however they can, I hope they understand that it's not biologically safe for humans to live in areas without sewage and trash infrastructure. That's how you get cholera, hepatitis, etc.
wow, how widely is this belief held? is there a name for it?
It's not a particularly popular model, even though it was influential in developing views that remain popular today.
To put it another way, the people living in RV's are also residents of the neighborhoods and they are not homeless, just houseless.
The municipal services, in the US, are generally funded by property taxes
The parent comment specifically referred to "municipal services like sewage and trash pickup" which, to my knowledge, are not funded by property taxes in any US state but by individual or association subscription and hookup fees, and those generally go to private entities.Doubtful, if you have to sat "I am x but" that means you understand you are about to disprove your own position
Like saying "I support freedom of speech but..." No you do not...
>>there needs to be enforcement of laws and respect to the neighborhood that you are living in, whether or not you are homeless.
There needs to be respect for the individual and if a person is not causing physical harm to another person they need to be left alone.
"Respect" is a nebulous subjective concept that the government has no business attempting to enforce with law
"The Law" is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.