11 ms·

I'm watching closely for the implications of this ruling. There are already Seattle neighborhoods who have folks living in their RVs, cooking meth, with no tra

by influx 9y ago

I'm watching closely for the implications of this ruling. There are already Seattle neighborhoods who have folks living in their RVs, cooking meth, with no trash service, no working sewer system, selling drugs out of their RV, spewing needles around the ground, and the police already refused to do anything about it. 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-hundreds-frustrated-by-rvs-property-theft-in-seattle/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/meeting-draws-hund...

syshum 9y ago
>>Sympathetic to the plight of the homeless, but 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.
ProAm 9y ago
This ruling is completely different from your example. Making and selling drugs and even littering is still 100% illegal, regardless of if you do it in your home or car. Very different from selling your car/home to pay parking tickets and fines.
- influx 9y ago
  Seattle police have already been told to stand down enforcing homeless folks living in vehicles, including when residents report drug selling, and health violations. This ruling will just add to the pressure for police to look the other way. 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-frustrated-by-crime-violent-incident-near-unauthorized-rvs/681752879 http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-business-owner-frust...
  - evanlivingston 9y ago
    Are the people living in vehicles not minding their own business? How do you know the people living in homes are respecting the law? 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?
    - toasterlovin 9y ago
      The people who own property contribute to the upkeep of the neighborhood in the form of property taxes. People living in cars do not. That is the fundamental difference.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The people who own property contribute to the upkeep of the neighborhood in the form of property taxes. People living in cars do not. 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.
        munificent 9y ago
        If you were to jack up vehicle license fees, you would further punish low-income people who are barely getting by and need to drive for work.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > If you were to jack up vehicle license fees I didn't say anything about the level of VLFs, I said something about the distribution of funds raised thereby.
        munificent 9y ago
        That's zero-sum. If you're going to put more of that money into services to support vehicle-dwellers, what about the other areas that lose out? Road maintenance?
- munificent 9y ago
  It is illegal, yes, but the reality is that it's not enforced. The letter of the law is irrelevant -- the law is what the police enforce. 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.
  - brudgers 9y ago
    The social contract is between the individuals (collectively) and the sovereign. Invoking the social contract is contrary to any complaint about non-enforcement because signing on means the sovereign can do whatever is necessary to keep the peace. In exchange, the individual agrees to go along with everything except the loss of their own life.
evanlivingston 9y ago
It feels like you're falsely equivalating some things here.
brudgers 9y ago
There are existing laws against cooking meth. There are existing laws against selling it. On the other hand, the homeless are citizens and municipal services like sewage and trash pickup are obligations of municipal government. To put it another way, the people living in RV's are also residents of the neighborhoods and they are not homeless, just houseless.
- DamnYuppie 9y ago
  The municipal services, in the US, are generally funded by property taxes. If you are in an RV you aren't paying for those services so I wouldn't agree that you have a "right" to them.
  - brudgers 9y ago
    Rights are a consequence of citizenship not tax payment.
    - Anon1096 9y ago
      Having your trash picked up isn't a right.
      - brudgers 9y ago
        As is true of other people's trash.
  - masonic 9y ago
    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.

by influx 9y ago

syshum 9y ago

>>Sympathetic to the plight of the homeless, but 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.

ProAm 9y ago

This ruling is completely different from your example. Making and selling drugs and even littering is still 100% illegal, regardless of if you do it in your home or car. Very different from selling your car/home to pay parking tickets and fines.

influx 9y ago
Seattle police have already been told to stand down enforcing homeless folks living in vehicles, including when residents report drug selling, and health violations. This ruling will just add to the pressure for police to look the other way. 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-frustrated-by-crime-violent-incident-near-unauthorized-rvs/681752879 http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-business-owner-frust...
- evanlivingston 9y ago
  Are the people living in vehicles not minding their own business? How do you know the people living in homes are respecting the law? 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?
  - toasterlovin 9y ago
    The people who own property contribute to the upkeep of the neighborhood in the form of property taxes. People living in cars do not. That is the fundamental difference.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > The people who own property contribute to the upkeep of the neighborhood in the form of property taxes. People living in cars do not. 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.
      - munificent 9y ago
        If you were to jack up vehicle license fees, you would further punish low-income people who are barely getting by and need to drive for work.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > If you were to jack up vehicle license fees I didn't say anything about the level of VLFs, I said something about the distribution of funds raised thereby.
        munificent 9y ago
        That's zero-sum. If you're going to put more of that money into services to support vehicle-dwellers, what about the other areas that lose out? Road maintenance?
munificent 9y ago
It is illegal, yes, but the reality is that it's not enforced. The letter of the law is irrelevant -- the law is what the police enforce. 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.
- brudgers 9y ago
  The social contract is between the individuals (collectively) and the sovereign. Invoking the social contract is contrary to any complaint about non-enforcement because signing on means the sovereign can do whatever is necessary to keep the peace. In exchange, the individual agrees to go along with everything except the loss of their own life.

evanlivingston 9y ago

It feels like you're falsely equivalating some things here.

brudgers 9y ago

There are existing laws against cooking meth. There are existing laws against selling it. On the other hand, the homeless are citizens and municipal services like sewage and trash pickup are obligations of municipal government. To put it another way, the people living in RV's are also residents of the neighborhoods and they are not homeless, just houseless.

DamnYuppie 9y ago
The municipal services, in the US, are generally funded by property taxes. If you are in an RV you aren't paying for those services so I wouldn't agree that you have a "right" to them.
- brudgers 9y ago
  Rights are a consequence of citizenship not tax payment.
  - Anon1096 9y ago
    Having your trash picked up isn't a right.
    - brudgers 9y ago
      As is true of other people's trash.
- masonic 9y ago
  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.