User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 4:03:25 PM EDT
[#1]
Homelessness is obviously better than a tiny home.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 4:06:49 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Homelessness is obviously better than a tiny home. Have you seen the tiny house threads here? A good portion of GD agrees. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 5:36:37 PM EDT
[#3]
So if it's not housing, it's a possession. And the city can simply confiscate a homeless person's possessions, just because.
"Hey, that's an iPhone you have there - that's a danger to yourself and the community. We're just going to take that." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 5:37:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Hey, they can't let the homeless have homes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 5:43:38 PM EDT
[#5]
I bet not a single person living in those things is an illegal alien.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 5:48:03 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if it's not housing, it's a possession. And the city can simply confiscate a homeless person's possessions, just because. "Hey, that's an iPhone you have there - that's a danger to yourself and the community. We're just going to take that." That doesn't matter. Because the only way to argue the point is with a $100/hr lawyer, something the city knows a homeless person can't afford when they have just confiscated their home equity
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 5:51:25 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So if it's not housing, it's a possession. And the city can simply confiscate a homeless person's possessions, just because. "Hey, that's an iPhone you have there - that's a danger to yourself and the community. We're just going to take that." I think the reason they can do that, at least according to the article, is these quasi-structures were erected on or under freeway overpasses. You can't just build what is essentially an outhouse on public use property and lay claim to it like some age of sail explorer. If it were a private landowner allowing people to camp tiny houses on his land I doubt the city could do anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 5:51:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Mayor Eric Garcetti's spokeswoman, Connie Llanos, said he is committed to getting homeless people into permanent and not makeshift housing.
"Unfortunately, these structures can be hazardous to the individuals living in them and to the community at large," Llanos said in a statement on the mayor's behalf. Only government can decide if you are safe or not, citizen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 5:56:28 PM EDT
[#9]
So someone is building shacks and plopping them on City owned land and folks are wondering why the City if getting pissed.
Property Taxes |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 5:57:08 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That doesn't matter. Because the only way to argue the point is with a $100/hr lawyer, something the city knows a homeless person can't afford when they have just confiscated their home equity Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So if it's not housing, it's a possession. And the city can simply confiscate a homeless person's possessions, just because. "Hey, that's an iPhone you have there - that's a danger to yourself and the community. We're just going to take that." That doesn't matter. Because the only way to argue the point is with a $100/hr lawyer, something the city knows a homeless person can't afford when they have just confiscated their home equity I'm surprised the ACLU isn't on this. But then protecting the rights of bums under an overpass isn't quite as glamorous as whatever else they do to hold press conferences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 5:58:46 PM EDT
[#11]
Wait, you can't just build firetrap shacks under bridges and move in?
 Isn't LA full of homeless encampments? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 5:59:09 PM EDT
[#12]
Dirty Mike and the boys send their regards.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 5:59:38 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the reason they can do that, at least according to the article, is these quasi-structures were erected on or under freeway overpasses. You can't just build what is essentially an outhouse on public use property and lay claim to it like some age of sail explorer. If it were a private landowner allowing people to camp tiny houses on his land I doubt the city could do anything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So if it's not housing, it's a possession. And the city can simply confiscate a homeless person's possessions, just because. "Hey, that's an iPhone you have there - that's a danger to yourself and the community. We're just going to take that." I think the reason they can do that, at least according to the article, is these quasi-structures were erected on or under freeway overpasses. You can't just build what is essentially an outhouse on public use property and lay claim to it like some age of sail explorer. If it were a private landowner allowing people to camp tiny houses on his land I doubt the city could do anything. As long as the .gov gets taxes, they can have a structure to sleep in. We can't have reckless charities giving people places to sleep without the government getting theirs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:00:13 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Only government can decide if you are safe or not, citizen. Quote HistoryQuoted: Mayor Eric Garcetti's spokeswoman, Connie Llanos, said he is committed to getting homeless people into permanent and not makeshift housing. "Unfortunately, these structures can be hazardous to the individuals living in them and to the community at large," Llanos said in a statement on the mayor's behalf. Only government can decide if you are safe or not, citizen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:00:20 PM EDT
[#15]
They should move them all to a fenced in place and call it District 9. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:00:54 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So someone is building shacks and plopping them on City owned land and folks are wondering why the City if getting pissed. Property Taxes Fine, the city is pissed. If I park my car on city property, do they tow it away with a "Fuck you, ours now!" note? They can't even get them out of impound. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:00:57 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, you can't just build firetrap shacks under bridges and move in?
Isn't LA full of homeless encampments? I haven't been there in over 15 years but last time I went every single overpass was a full out encampment. Hell, they even lived in caves in the hills of Malibu. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:02:02 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As long as the .gov gets taxes, they can have a structure to sleep in. We can't have reckless charities giving people places to sleep without the government getting theirs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So if it's not housing, it's a possession. And the city can simply confiscate a homeless person's possessions, just because. "Hey, that's an iPhone you have there - that's a danger to yourself and the community. We're just going to take that." I think the reason they can do that, at least according to the article, is these quasi-structures were erected on or under freeway overpasses. You can't just build what is essentially an outhouse on public use property and lay claim to it like some age of sail explorer. If it were a private landowner allowing people to camp tiny houses on his land I doubt the city could do anything. As long as the .gov gets taxes, they can have a structure to sleep in. We can't have reckless charities giving people places to sleep without the government getting theirs. Again, the issue is not giving the homeless tiny houses, it's that they are living in these tiny houses on public use land, specifically freeway overpasses. LA is full of homeless camps that get largely left alone because they just set up tents and shit. When they start building structures on public land the city is mandated to act... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:03:19 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I bet not a single person living in those things is an illegal alien. Probably not. The illegals are working and living 4 up in a shitty weekly rate hotel. Not many illegals pulling SSD and living on the streets/ in a donated shack I'd doubt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:03:29 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey, they can't let the homeless have homes. It's a bit tautological. But "the plight of shack dwellers" doesn't have the same cachet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:06:51 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, the issue is not giving the homeless tiny houses, it's that they are living in these tiny houses on public use land, specifically freeway overpasses. LA is full of homeless camps that get largely left alone because they just set up tents and shit. When they start building structures on public land the city is mandated to act... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if it's not housing, it's a possession. And the city can simply confiscate a homeless person's possessions, just because. "Hey, that's an iPhone you have there - that's a danger to yourself and the community. We're just going to take that." I think the reason they can do that, at least according to the article, is these quasi-structures were erected on or under freeway overpasses. You can't just build what is essentially an outhouse on public use property and lay claim to it like some age of sail explorer. If it were a private landowner allowing people to camp tiny houses on his land I doubt the city could do anything. As long as the .gov gets taxes, they can have a structure to sleep in. We can't have reckless charities giving people places to sleep without the government getting theirs. Again, the issue is not giving the homeless tiny houses, it's that they are living in these tiny houses on public use land, specifically freeway overpasses. LA is full of homeless camps that get largely left alone because they just set up tents and shit. When they start building structures on public land the city is mandated to act... Except it's not really a structure. It doesn't have a foundation, nor is it hooked up to utilities.They are very well built versions of 5 pallets and a canvas tarp over the opening - shelter, but not exactly permanent. Don't get me wrong - the guy who donated them is a classic lefty moron. Those things would be gone in a few months, or trashed, etc. Give a man a fish, etc. But that doesn't give the right for the government to confiscate and destroy private property with no judicial process whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:09:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sure when these shacks burst into flame no one will expect the taxpayers to pay for the fire crews, ambulances and medical bills for the non taxpayers living in them, and, of course, the non taxpayers will sue the city for not enforcing various codes that could have protected them Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mayor Eric Garcetti's spokeswoman, Connie Llanos, said he is committed to getting homeless people into permanent and not makeshift housing.
"Unfortunately, these structures can be hazardous to the individuals living in them and to the community at large," Llanos said in a statement on the mayor's behalf. Only government can decide if you are safe or not, citizen. What's the difference if PD, Fire and EMS have to respond to a tiny house or a pile of scabbed together lumber a homeless guy threw together? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:10:48 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Escalating their battle to stamp out an unprecedented spread of street encampments, city officials have begun seizing tiny houses from homeless people living on freeway overpasses in South Los Angeles.
Three of the gaily painted wooden houses, which come with solar-powered lights and American flags, were confiscated earlier this month and seven more are planned for impound Thursday, a Bureau of Sanitation spokeswoman said. Elvis Summers, who built and donated the structures, was out Wednesday with a flat-bed trailer, trying to move houses scattered up and down Harbor Freeway bridges into storage. "These people are beaten down so hard, you give them any opportunity to be normal, it lifts them up," Summers said. The houses were removed as part of a street cleanup requested by the office of Councilman Curren Price, who represents the neighborhood, sanitation spokeswoman Elena Stern said. The three houses taken in early February are being stored on a city equipment lot but ultimately will be destroyed, Stern added. Some advocates for the homeless see the wooden, single-room structures — each about the size of a parking spot — as a simple and safer alternative to having the homeless sleep on the sidewalks. Mayor Eric Garcetti's spokeswoman, Connie Llanos, said he is committed to getting homeless people into permanent and not makeshift housing. "Unfortunately, these structures can be hazardous to the individuals living in them and to the community at large," Llanos said in a statement on the mayor's behalf. "When the city took the houses, they didn't offer housing, they straight kicked them out," Summers said. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-tiny-houses-seized-20160224-story.html#nt=oft12aH-1la1 Not the America it used to be |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:11:27 PM EDT
[#24]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. I wonder how many times they were told to move their shit before it got hauled away. If it was just removed without warning would some SJW lawyer be able to make trouble for the city? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:12:12 PM EDT
[#25]
The main problem is that they are placing these things on property that does not belong to them.
Would you want one of them placed in your front yard? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:14:59 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except it's not really a structure. It doesn't have a foundation, nor is it hooked up to utilities.They are very well built versions of 5 pallets and a canvas tarp over the opening - shelter, but not exactly permanent. Don't get me wrong - the guy who donated them is a classic lefty moron. Those things would be gone in a few months, or trashed, etc. Give a man a fish, etc. But that doesn't give the right for the government to confiscate and destroy private property with no judicial process whatsoever. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So if it's not housing, it's a possession. And the city can simply confiscate a homeless person's possessions, just because. "Hey, that's an iPhone you have there - that's a danger to yourself and the community. We're just going to take that." I think the reason they can do that, at least according to the article, is these quasi-structures were erected on or under freeway overpasses. You can't just build what is essentially an outhouse on public use property and lay claim to it like some age of sail explorer. If it were a private landowner allowing people to camp tiny houses on his land I doubt the city could do anything. As long as the .gov gets taxes, they can have a structure to sleep in. We can't have reckless charities giving people places to sleep without the government getting theirs. Again, the issue is not giving the homeless tiny houses, it's that they are living in these tiny houses on public use land, specifically freeway overpasses. LA is full of homeless camps that get largely left alone because they just set up tents and shit. When they start building structures on public land the city is mandated to act... Except it's not really a structure. It doesn't have a foundation, nor is it hooked up to utilities.They are very well built versions of 5 pallets and a canvas tarp over the opening - shelter, but not exactly permanent. Don't get me wrong - the guy who donated them is a classic lefty moron. Those things would be gone in a few months, or trashed, etc. Give a man a fish, etc. But that doesn't give the right for the government to confiscate and destroy private property with no judicial process whatsoever. Agreed. But I disagree with your assessment that it isn't a structure just because it lacks a foundation. It has four walls, a door, and a roof, and it can't be easily torn down or moved without a vehicle. To me that makes it a building, and if a taxpaying land owner has to abide by the building code and wouldn't be allowed to build a foundationless shed with no utilities in a yard he owns(He would not in LA, a building permit is required), why would we allow Joe Shit the Ragman to plant the same thing on land that is held in trust for the general use of the city residents? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:19:43 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, you can't just build firetrap shacks under bridges and move in?
Isn't LA full of homeless encampments? Seattle has a bunch and I don't think they clear those out regularly, if at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:22:49 PM EDT
[#28]
It's a shame he didn't provide title/deed/ownership papers along with these houses.
Then it would have been a civil matter and the .gov would need to follow propper eviction procedures, no different than a squatter in your living room. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:23:15 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:24:14 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if it's not housing, it's a possession. And the city can simply confiscate a homeless person's possessions, just because. "Hey, that's an iPhone you have there - that's a danger to yourself and the community. We're just going to take that." Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if it's not housing, it's a possession. And the city can simply confiscate a homeless person's possessions, just because. "Hey, that's an iPhone you have there - that's a danger to yourself and the community. We're just going to take that." did you read??????? stored on a city equipment lot if you built a home on public property i bet you the city will destroy it |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 6:28:34 PM EDT
[#31]
We obviously need more fecal matter on the sidewalks. A win win for California.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:42:41 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
did you read??????? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So if it's not housing, it's a possession. And the city can simply confiscate a homeless person's possessions, just because. "Hey, that's an iPhone you have there - that's a danger to yourself and the community. We're just going to take that." did you read??????? stored on a city equipment lot The homes were stored on the equipment lot AFTER the city confiscated them. Did *you* read? if you built a home on public property i bet you the city will destroy it
Except they weren't built there, they were dropped there off a roll-off. If you park your car on the side of the highway, you get a tag that says "Move it within X hours". If you don't, it gets impounded, and you are notified and can go pay the fine and get your car back. They don't tow it and send it to the crusher in a week. No, they should not have been there. But they are still property of the owners. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:52:40 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm sure when these shacks burst into flame no one will expect the taxpayers to pay for the fire crews, ambulances and medical bills for the non taxpayers living in them, and, of course, the non taxpayers will sue the city for not enforcing various codes that could have protected them Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Mayor Eric Garcetti's spokeswoman, Connie Llanos, said he is committed to getting homeless people into permanent and not makeshift housing. "Unfortunately, these structures can be hazardous to the individuals living in them and to the community at large," Llanos said in a statement on the mayor's behalf. Only government can decide if you are safe or not, citizen. You're right! I'm sure they'll move to a new shanty town that's up to code now... Everybody wants to be a Liberal until it's time to do Liberal shit. This was about money, be it taxes, property values, or straight up not wanting bums hasteling the patrons nearby for quarters. I bet if they said "OK, we're gonna move these to San Diego" the city would be all to happy to pay for shipping |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:57:17 PM EDT
[#34]
Hope they like deer vaginas, because taking shacks from the homeless is exactly how you get deer vaginas
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:57:40 PM EDT
[#35]
Boy i sure hope the 58 year old Vietnam war vet with PTST in the article gets found soon. Not
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:59:35 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't get me wrong - the guy who donated them is a classic lefty moron. Those things would be gone in a few months, or trashed, etc. Give a man a fish, etc. But that doesn't give the right for the government to confiscate and destroy private property with no judicial process whatsoever. Hobo Dan doesn't get to create a Hooverville on any right of way he chooses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:01:56 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seattle has a bunch and I don't think they clear those out regularly, if at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wait, you can't just build firetrap shacks under bridges and move in?
Isn't LA full of homeless encampments? Seattle has a bunch and I don't think they clear those out regularly, if at all. I've heard Seattle is sprouting DIY favelas like herpes infested cooch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:02:02 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sure when these shacks burst into flame no one will expect the taxpayers to pay for the fire crews, ambulances and medical bills for the non taxpayers living in them, and, of course, the non taxpayers will sue the city for not enforcing various codes that could have protected them Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mayor Eric Garcetti's spokeswoman, Connie Llanos, said he is committed to getting homeless people into permanent and not makeshift housing.
"Unfortunately, these structures can be hazardous to the individuals living in them and to the community at large," Llanos said in a statement on the mayor's behalf. Only government can decide if you are safe or not, citizen. And that's exactly why they're going away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:03:52 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've heard Seattle is sprouting DIY favelas like herpes infested cooch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait, you can't just build firetrap shacks under bridges and move in?
Isn't LA full of homeless encampments? Seattle has a bunch and I don't think they clear those out regularly, if at all. I've heard Seattle is sprouting DIY favelas like herpes infested cooch. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:05:42 PM EDT
[#40]
The government is so awesome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:07:48 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wait, you can't just build firetrap shacks under bridges and move in? Isn't LA full of homeless encampments? Wait, i cant say that with a straight face |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:11:50 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The government is so awesome. Absolutely! They always know what is best for us! I feel safer already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:15:20 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, you can't just build firetrap shacks under bridges and move in?
Isn't LA full of homeless encampments? There's no room, everything is jammed together edge to edge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:16:42 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That doesn't matter. Because the only way to argue the point is with a $100/hr lawyer, something the city knows a homeless person can't afford when they have just confiscated their home equity Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So if it's not housing, it's a possession. And the city can simply confiscate a homeless person's possessions, just because. "Hey, that's an iPhone you have there - that's a danger to yourself and the community. We're just going to take that." That doesn't matter. Because the only way to argue the point is with a $100/hr lawyer, something the city knows a homeless person can't afford when they have just confiscated their home equity Where the fuck are you going to find a lawyer who only charges $100/hour? my divorce lawyer cost $225/hour which was cheap, and my appeal lawyer was $350/hour. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 10:47:54 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fine, the city is pissed. If I park my car on city property, do they tow it away with a "Fuck you, ours now!" note? They can't even get them out of impound. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So someone is building shacks and plopping them on City owned land and folks are wondering why the City if getting pissed. Property Taxes Fine, the city is pissed. If I park my car on city property, do they tow it away with a "Fuck you, ours now!" note? They can't even get them out of impound. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 1:13:30 AM EDT
[#46]
They ran a news story last fall about this guy building these tiny homes for the homeless in LA. The most obvious thing about the story was that they focused on the awesome homes and the homeless moving into them, but completely avoided talking about where these homes were going. They showed the majority of these homes just being parked on a neighborhood street. Who would want that crap in front of their home?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 1:40:48 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you seen the tiny house threads here? A good portion of GD agrees. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Homelessness is obviously better than a tiny home. Have you seen the tiny house threads here? A good portion of GD agrees. A good portion of GD are worthless cockbags. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2016 1:51:02 AM EDT
[#48]
Here in Seattle they are GIVING the homeless people FREE brand new tiny houses to live in that are in secured areas.
I am sure all the crackheads and drunks will take real good care of them also 
News link for free Seattle tiny houses |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
