Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 2/25/2016 2:55:07 PM EST
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.

View Quote


http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-tiny-houses-seized-20160224-story.html#nt=oft12aH-1la1
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 3:03:25 PM EST
Homelessness is obviously better than a tiny home.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 3:06:49 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Homelessness is obviously better than a tiny home.
View Quote


Have you seen the tiny house threads here? A good portion of GD agrees.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 4:36:37 PM EST
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."
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 4:37:17 PM EST
Hey, they can't let the homeless have homes.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 4:43:38 PM EST
I bet not a single person living in those things is an illegal alien.

Link Posted: 2/25/2016 4:48:03 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By R2point0:
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."
View Quote


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
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 4:51:25 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By R2point0:
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."
View Quote

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.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 4:51:28 PM EST
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.
View Quote


Only government can decide if you are safe or not, citizen.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 4:56:28 PM EST
So someone is building shacks and plopping them on City owned land and folks are wondering why the City if getting pissed.

Property Taxes


Link Posted: 2/25/2016 4:57:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dyezak:


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
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dyezak:
Originally Posted By R2point0:
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.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 4:58:46 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 4:59:09 PM EST
Dirty Mike and the boys send their regards.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 4:59:38 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SC11B:

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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SC11B:
Originally Posted By R2point0:
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.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:00:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:00:20 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:00:54 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Miami_JBT:
So someone is building shacks and plopping them on City owned land and folks are wondering why the City if getting pissed.

Property Taxes

View Quote


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.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:00:57 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Wait, you can't just build firetrap shacks under bridges and move in?

Isn't LA full of homeless encampments?
View Quote


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.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:02:02 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bedouin2W:

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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bedouin2W:
Originally Posted By SC11B:
Originally Posted By R2point0:
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...
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:03:19 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Atomic_Ferret:
I bet not a single person living in those things is an illegal alien.

View Quote



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.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:03:29 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Goosemaster:
Hey, they can't let the homeless have homes.
View Quote


It's a bit tautological.

But "the plight of shack dwellers" doesn't have the same cachet.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:06:51 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SC11B:

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...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SC11B:
Originally Posted By Bedouin2W:
Originally Posted By SC11B:
Originally Posted By R2point0:
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.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:09:28 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Aimless:
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
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Originally Posted By Durka-Durka:
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.
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



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?
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:10:48 PM EST
Originally Posted By Steve_T_M:
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.


View Quote


http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-tiny-houses-seized-20160224-story.html#nt=oft12aH-1la1
View Quote



Not the America it used to be
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:11:27 PM EST
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.
View Quote


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?
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:12:12 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:14:59 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By R2point0:


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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By R2point0:
Originally Posted By SC11B:
Originally Posted By Bedouin2W:
Originally Posted By SC11B:
Originally Posted By R2point0:
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?
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:19:43 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Wait, you can't just build firetrap shacks under bridges and move in?

Isn't LA full of homeless encampments?
View Quote


Seattle has a bunch and I don't think they clear those out regularly, if at all.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:22:49 PM EST
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.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:23:15 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:24:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/25/2016 5:25:07 PM EST by TaylorWSO]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By R2point0:
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."
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By R2point0:
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

Link Posted: 2/25/2016 5:28:34 PM EST
We obviously need more fecal matter on the sidewalks. A win win for California.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 8:42:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TaylorWSO:


did you read???????
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TaylorWSO:
Originally Posted By R2point0:
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.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 8:52:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/25/2016 8:54:45 PM EST by BigMat]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Aimless:
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
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Originally Posted By Durka-Durka:
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.
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

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
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 8:57:17 PM EST
Hope they like deer vaginas, because taking shacks from the homeless is exactly how you get deer vaginas
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 8:57:40 PM EST
Boy i sure hope the 58 year old Vietnam war vet with PTST in the article gets found soon. Not
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 8:59:35 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By R2point0:
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.
View Quote


Hobo Dan doesn't get to create a Hooverville on any right of way he chooses.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 9:01:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Devils_Advocate:


Seattle has a bunch and I don't think they clear those out regularly, if at all.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Devils_Advocate:
Originally Posted By Aimless:
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.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 9:02:02 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Aimless:
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
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Originally Posted By Durka-Durka:
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.
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

And that's exactly why they're going away.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 9:03:52 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:


I've heard Seattle is sprouting DIY favelas like herpes infested cooch.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
Originally Posted By Devils_Advocate:
Originally Posted By Aimless:
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.

Link Posted: 2/25/2016 9:05:42 PM EST
The government is so awesome.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 9:07:48 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Aimless:
Wait, you can't just build firetrap shacks under bridges and move in?

Isn't LA full of homeless encampments?
View Quote
They're not shacks, they're tiny homes...

Wait, i cant say that with a straight face
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 9:11:50 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 9:15:20 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 9:16:42 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dyezak:


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
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dyezak:
Originally Posted By R2point0:
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.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 9:47:54 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By R2point0:


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.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By R2point0:
Originally Posted By Miami_JBT:
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.
Yes, they can and do. This folks haven't been told once or twice. It is an ongoing event.
Link Posted: 2/26/2016 12:13:30 AM EST
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?
Link Posted: 2/26/2016 12:40:48 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sd_norske:


Have you seen the tiny house threads here? A good portion of GD agrees.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sd_norske:
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
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.
Link Posted: 2/26/2016 12:51:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/26/2016 12:53:42 AM EST by StrkAliteN]
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
Top Top