4 ms·

This law won't alter the fundamental situation. There are people who cannot afford homes. Forcing them to hide their now illegal sleeping arrangements is not go

This law won't alter the fundamental situation. There are people who cannot afford homes. Forcing them to hide their now illegal sleeping arrangements is not going to make them disappear or make the problems that come with a thoroughly disenfranchised population disappear. The only thing this accomplishes is putting more of the burden on the poorest people in the community. Now, those people who formerly had a reasonably safe place to park overnight to sleep will have to find a new place to sleep every night. They won't be able to build any sort of community bonds with their neighbors, develop a routine (that might be necessary for recovery from addiction, or getting a job, or getting a kid to school every day, or any number of things that requires one to know where you're going to be sleeping each night). I've been among the wealthy mobile homeless for five years now (I live in a motor home, and traveled almost non-stop for four years; lately I travel only ~3 months out of the year, but will return to traveling more as I recover from some personal grief that's led me to need some stable friendships and a predictable life for a while). I've met a whole lot of folks who live in their vehicle, whether it's an old motorhome, a van, or even a car, including in Palo Alto (where I parked for three weeks while visiting friends). This kind of law criminalizes people who shouldn't be criminalized, and it makes crime part of the daily lives of people who are just trying to get by. The problem here is that this is using a violent solution to a community problem. When you ask for a law to be made against an activity someone does, you're using violence and imprisonment to get your way. That's what the state is: Legalized violence. Is it right to find someone so far down on their luck that they are living in a car, and respond by sending men with guns to fine them or arrest them? Because that's what this means. The poorest people in Palo Alto will now be subject to being ticketed or arrested for sleeping. Not because they want to hurt anyone, but because they have no where else to sleep.

anigbrowl 13y ago
I'm not trying to represent the council's POV. I'm just asking if the opster above read the article, because s/he didn't address some of the specific things in it that seemed relevant. That's what the state is: Legalized violence. No, that's one model of the state suggested by one influential sociologist. I am sick to the back teeth of this trope being trotted out as if it were a fact. All it tells me is that you have an axe to grind. sending men with guns to fine them or arrest them Perhaps you should try a country without mass gun ownership then. I quite like that British and Irish cops don't carry guns as a matter of course, but then that's got something to do with the much lower rate of gun ownership. If you like the 2nd amendment, and I guess that you do, it's unreasonable to demand that the police don't wear guns, and to suggest that the mere carrying of guns mean they're violent by definition.
- ics 13y ago
  FWIW, I didn't read your post as being antagonistic. I was actually posting a reply to your comment originally (about the one guy attacking another, and the threat towards a police officer) but chose to chuck most of it and put the shorter version here instead.
- SwellJoe 13y ago
  "If you like the 2nd amendment, and I guess that you do" How about if I remove the mention of guns? "sending men to fine them or arrest them". This still seems violent to me. Fines lead to warrants...I know several homeless folks who are always at risk of arrest because they have bench warrants from unpaid tickets for sleeping (in Austin, sleeping pretty much anywhere other than an apartment/hotel/house is illegal). Taking away someone's freedom is a violent act (obviously no one is going to jail voluntarily...it's only the threat of violence that makes them choose jail). I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I'm just always surprised when people don't see the obvious. Kidnapping is a crime...only the state can get away with it, through overwhelming force. I don't really care to get into a gun rights debate, so I apologize for bringing it into the conversation. It was a cheap tactic on my part, to make the violence of police more visceral to someone who might not have seen police violence in person before. Thank you for making me aware that I did it.

anigbrowl 13y ago

I'm not trying to represent the council's POV. I'm just asking if the opster above read the article, because s/he didn't address some of the specific things in it that seemed relevant. That's what the state is: Legalized violence. No, that's one model of the state suggested by one influential sociologist. I am sick to the back teeth of this trope being trotted out as if it were a fact. All it tells me is that you have an axe to grind. sending men with guns to fine them or arrest them Perhaps you should try a country without mass gun ownership then. I quite like that British and Irish cops don't carry guns as a matter of course, but then that's got something to do with the much lower rate of gun ownership. If you like the 2nd amendment, and I guess that you do, it's unreasonable to demand that the police don't wear guns, and to suggest that the mere carrying of guns mean they're violent by definition.

ics 13y ago
FWIW, I didn't read your post as being antagonistic. I was actually posting a reply to your comment originally (about the one guy attacking another, and the threat towards a police officer) but chose to chuck most of it and put the shorter version here instead.
SwellJoe 13y ago
"If you like the 2nd amendment, and I guess that you do" How about if I remove the mention of guns? "sending men to fine them or arrest them". This still seems violent to me. Fines lead to warrants...I know several homeless folks who are always at risk of arrest because they have bench warrants from unpaid tickets for sleeping (in Austin, sleeping pretty much anywhere other than an apartment/hotel/house is illegal). Taking away someone's freedom is a violent act (obviously no one is going to jail voluntarily...it's only the threat of violence that makes them choose jail). I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I'm just always surprised when people don't see the obvious. Kidnapping is a crime...only the state can get away with it, through overwhelming force. I don't really care to get into a gun rights debate, so I apologize for bringing it into the conversation. It was a cheap tactic on my part, to make the violence of police more visceral to someone who might not have seen police violence in person before. Thank you for making me aware that I did it.