AMELIA ROSCH Last night, the city of Palo Alto, California voted to overturn its 2013 ban on using vehicles as dwellings. The seven to one decision followed criticism and a possible lawsuit, although the ban was never formally enforced. In June, the Ninth Circuit Court said that a ban on sleeping in vehicles in Los Angeles was illegal, putting it on hold. While reconsidering the ordinance, members of the city council listened to testimony from homeless residents who live in their vehicles. One resident, Oliver Terry, said that he and his mother lived in their van as he studied at a local community college. “I just don’t want this whole vehicle-dwelling thing to put a mark on my legal record and offset my entire life,” he said. Palo Alto’s vice mayor Liz Kniss told Palo Alto Weekly that none of the supporters of the ban testified. A member of the Palo Alto city council, Gail Price, described the decision as “the right thing to do and this is the compassionate thing to do.” The ban, which was passed in September 2013, would have made sleeping in a vehicle a misdemeanor or felony punishable by up to $1000 in fines. It was originally proposed by the Police Department in 2011 and supported by community members who said they did not feel safe in areas that had higher homeless populations. Opponents of the plan argued that it criminalized and dehumanized the homeless. In 2013, there were 157 homeless people in the city of Palo Alto, 145 of whom did not live in shelters. Overall, around 75 percent of Santa Clara County’s homeless population does not live in shelters, and 10 percent said they normally sleep in their vehicles. But over 90 percent said that they would use permanent housing if it were available, while a majority said that high cost was their main obstacle to finding housing. More than a quarter of Santa Clara County’s homeless population said they’d been turned away from a shelter and, in most of the cases, it was because there were not enough beds available. A wide variety of cities have laws that punish homeless people. This month, a city in California banned homeless people from sleeping outside, while a city in Florida unanimously passed a ban on public panhandling. In September, Fort Lauderdale passed an ordinance that made sleeping in public punishable with a $500 fine or 60 days in jail.Last August, Columbia, South Carolina approved a plan that allowed police to arrest people in the downtown area. Over 180 cities have passed ordinances that criminalize homelessness, from lying down on sidewalks to storing possessions on public property.
More asinine laws that government believes will solve problems. Fining a homeless person $1000. Really. What jackass came up with that concept? Do they think they'll collect on that?
Resort areas have long had these kinds of laws. Otherwise, they'd have people sleeping on the sidewalks, in cars, on the beach, etc.
Palo Alto is one the most expensive places in the US to live. You don't have to be "homeless" not to be able to afford to live there. Maybe these homeless people should think about going somewhere that is not so astronomically expensive. Or is that "stigmatizing" poverty and "criminalizing" homelessness?
Tiny Houses For Homeless People Put Roofs Over Heads In Time For The Holidays Robbie Couch Occupy Madison isn't so much focused on bringing down the 1 percent as much as its determined to give those at the bottom a hand up. On Nov. 15, the Wisconsin-based activist group completed construction on three finished houses for homeless residents in the community, according to Al Jazeera. One couple and two others will reside in the tiny homes, which were built on private property, as part of the organization's OM Build initiative focused on providing stable shelter for those living in extreme poverty. "We had heard about these tiny houses in the media, but mostly in the context of middle-class Americans downsizing their lifestyle," Luca Clemente of Occupy Madison told Al Jazeera. "We saw that it would be possible to do the same thing for the homeless." A joint effort between activists and homeless residents, OM Build hopes to complete the next phase of the project -- six more homes, a bathroom and community room complete with kitchen and laundry facilities -- by spring, according to Al Jazeera. The tiny home initiative relies heavily on private donations and contributions from volunteers. Occupy Madison, which resulted from the nationwide movement against Wall Street wealth in 2011, has focused its efforts on combating homelessness in the Wisconsin capital since its inception. Last December, OM Build completed its first tiny house: a 98-square-foot home with a roof, insulated walls, bathroom and kitchen for Betty Ybarra. "It's exciting," Ybarra, who'd previously been living in a tent, told NBC 15 News. She moved into her new residence on Christmas Eve. "I've never owned my own house." The group's newest homes are move-in ready in time for this year's holidays, and residents wasted no time in stringing up some festive decor to match the season. Photo: OM Build OM Build is one of several initiatives across the country implementing or considering tiny home communities as an effective way to fight homelessness. In August, Portland, Oregon, moved forward in approving plans to utilize public land in order to construct tiny homes for low-income residents. Similar projects have seen successfulin New York and Texas communities, too, Reuters reported in May. "Before people can get back on their feet and take advantage of job training and drug and alcohol counseling, they need a place to live," Multnomah County Chairwoman Deborah Kafoury said of Portland's tiny home plans, according to the Oregonian. "This helps accomplish that."
The principle of bounded ethicality states that when a belief conflicts with a behavior that people are motivated to maintain due to self interest, cultural norms and so forth, most individuals will find a way to convince themselves that their ethical principles do not apply to the behavior in question.
If only the GOP had their way there would not be a problem with the homeless. They would die from starvation.
Actually homelessness would be a lesser problem if we didn't have so MANY government handouts where people develop expectations of such. I have family that went through the depression .. did they expect the government to pay their living expenses? Nope. They worked that much harder to keep their heads above water and later flourished due to work ethic. As an example .. Food Stamps were NEVER meant to be the sole source of groceries. Yet people today expect just that .. they bitch about not getting MORE.