4 ms·
Seems like we are going to be seeing more of this with drier conditions and ever growing homeless camps across California. There are numerous fire code violatio
by s0rce 9y ago
Seems like we are going to be seeing more of this with drier conditions and ever growing homeless camps across California. There are numerous fire code violations at these camps and these were devised for a reason. Not sure what the best course of action is but clearly something needs to happen.
- ajross 9y agoDevil's advocacy: must "something happen?". The point to allowing semi-permanent homeless camps is that people were being forced into hiding, sleeping in ditches and eating garbage. That's a serious social ill (no, I don't have numbers, but would be interested if someone does), and one that was trivially solved by allowing them to pitch tents and cook food. It's still not a great existence, but it's a whole lot better and it's something that lots of people will legitimately choose. And if the cost of that is some non-zero number of burned homes? Dunno, but my gut says that's a worthwhile trade. Not that I'd argue with running power to those camps and paying for some hot plates either, of course.
- s0rce 9y agoI agree that a tent does seem to be a step up from a ditch but I'm not sure you can say the issue was trivially solved. At least in the bay area many of the camps are in parks. This seems like a very controversial opinion but I really enjoy walking around parks and this really isn't possible with bustling, trash filled homeless encampments occupying the neighborhood parks. I don't have a solutions but I don't think tent camps are the way to go either.
- dilap 9y agoGiving them houses might help.
- Clubber 9y agoSo, give them yours. Maybe rent a room for free or something.
- ericd 9y agoOr, we could raise taxes and try to make a real solution like a civilized society, instead of relying on random acts of charity. Charging property taxes on the actual value of people's property in California and using that to fund local government works would be a good start.
- codycraven 9y agoSo people who bought their houses at a time they could afford them and are retired on a fixed income can have their property confiscated by the government when they can't pay the outrageous property taxes on their home's "value"...?
- ericd 9y agoThat is the propaganda that was used to pass Prop 13. But there are much less heavy-handed ways of achieving that, if that's your real goal. An age-based homestead exemption, for example. Meanwhile, we could start taxing the golf courses and corporate HQs that are still paying mid-70s rates.
- s0rce 9y agoI think this is a false premise, they don't need to stay in houses, if we actually built stuff they could move into smaller condos when retired. Easier access to ammenties, less stairs, less maintenance. All my grandparents in Canada did this. 2nd option, if you firmly believe that everyone must stay in their home until death then you simple offer tax exemptions to elderly with low income for their primary residence. I would be surprised if low income retires represented the majority of the "winners" of prop 13. Big corporations and upper/middle class landowners.
- dilap 9y agoWe have this, it's called taxes. I'd like to see the US government spend a lot more of that money on taking care of the neediest of its citizens and a lot less doing things like trying to overthrow the government of the latest country that inexplicably ended up on our shitlist.
- QAPereo 9y agoSure, share the wealth, and ideally have heeded warning for the last few decades. Similar Rx for everything from Middle East violence to environmental decline. It’s just that people don’t listen until their shit burns down.