> Assuming your stereotype is accurate, the police will arrest them for their actual crimes soon enough. No this does not happen. Property crime ends up being

> Assuming your stereotype is accurate, the police will arrest them for their actual crimes soon enough. No this does not happen. Property crime ends up being the bottom priority in many cities because of limited staffing/resources/competing priorities. > Until then, the pre-crime of living in an RV isn't sufficient cause. Sure it is. Should a city allow everyone to do whatever they want? If not, why is it out of scope for them to create rules that minimize the likelihood of crimes in the first place? You are asking tax-paying law-abiding residents to rely on a low-probability outcome when there are better ways to avoid being in that position in the first place. The city government exists to support its tax-paying, law-abiding residents. Otherwise why would those residents live there and pay taxes?