Pitching a tent is illegal in Sacramento; homeless campers raided by police

[rambone]

Being homeless is basically illegal in Sacramento. Their state has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Yet even after these people have lost everything, they still can't catch a break. Those lucky enough to have a tent to sleep in are chased around by police and get the last of their possessions confiscated. Apparently the city would prefer if people slept in the sidewalks -- wait, isn't that illegal also?

Riverside police raid homeless camp; investigation launched


In 2009, homeless were allowed to camp on a private lot, and yet they were still raided, their tents and sleeping bags seized, and given tickets and arrested. The property owner is suing the city.

Advocate for Sacramento homeless sues city over camping ordinance

 

[indykid]

It's commiefornia, should anyone expect otherwise?

I was going to say that after making homelessness illegal, and having no jobs so that homeless people could go to work and find affordable living, that the state was trying to get them to realize how hopeless their situation was, and make them commit suicide, but isn't suicide illegal in commiefornia too????

 

[RichardR]

Yea it's Commiefornia but the problem is that this sort of legislation/policies tends to spread like a virus, to other states & localities.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Will the homeless of Sacramento be treking the 2000 miles to the western Indiana city of Terre Haute for respite? I wonder if they even know Indiana exists?

 

[RichardR]

Will the homeless of Sacramento be treking the 2000 miles to the western Indiana city of Terre Haute for respite? I wonder if they even know Indiana exists?

I don't believe that to be the issue, the issue is whether or not the government has the authority (legal or moral) to "punish" through arrest or the levying of fines, the poorest of the poor for simply being poor?

 

[ATOMonkey]

We the people, have given the government authority to do whatever it feels like as long as it's for our safety or perceived safety, or if it offends, or looks bad, etc etc etc.

Not in purple, because it's the truth.

It used to be that the government's only responsibility was to defend Liberty. How much progress we have made.

 

[zombiehunter]

at this rate, their best option is a major crime....then at least they get a free room, food, cable tv, etc. Better than what they have now!

 

[lashicoN]

Will the homeless of Sacramento be treking the 2000 miles to the western Indiana city of Terre Haute for respite? I wonder if they even know Indiana exists?

I think if I were homeless with no possessions I'd prefer to sleep somewhere warmer that Indiana in January. Why do you think they would come here?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I don't believe that to be the issue, the issue is whether or not the government has the authority (legal or moral) to "punish" through arrest or the levying of fines, the poorest of the poor for simply being poor?

It's not a matter of being poor or not. Sacramento has a problem with tent cities. This is how they've choosen to deal with it. As long as it passes legal muster I'm fine with them doing what they want, how they want. I would never live in Kommifornia, but the fruits and nuts out there have every right to govern themselves as they see fit.

States have the authority to do what they choose to do within the context and confines of natural law, the US Constitution, international treaties, federal laws and regulations, and their own state constitutions. The option if you don't like it is to either work to change the law or move where the state no longer exerts authority. This is our system. This is exactly the way it is supposed to work.

I think if I were homeless with no possessions I'd prefer to sleep somewhere warmer that Indiana in January. Why do you think they would come here?

I don't. I also don't understand why what they choose to do in Kommifornia is in any way relevent to Indiana.

 

[ATOMonkey]

It's not a matter of being poor or not. Sacramento has a problem with tent cities. This is how they've choosen to deal with it. As long as it passes legal muster I'm fine with them doing what they want, how they want. I would never live in Kommifornia, but the fruits and nuts out there have every right to govern themselves as they see fit.

States have the authority to do what they choose to do within the context and confines of natural law, the US Constitution, international treaties, federal laws and regulations, and their own state constitutions. The option if you don't like it is to either work to change the law or move where the state no longer exerts authority. This is our system. This is exactly the way it is supposed to work.



I don't. I also don't understand why what they choose to do in Kommifornia is in any way relevent to Indiana.

It is not unheard of to use case law from another state to set legal precedence.

 

[RichardR]

It's not a matter of being poor or not. Sacramento has a problem with tent cities. This is how they've choosen to deal with it. As long as it passes legal muster I'm fine with them doing what they want, how they want. I would never live in Kommifornia, but the fruits and nuts out there have every right to govern themselves as they see fit.

States have the authority to do what they choose to do within the context and confines of natural law, the US Constitution, international treaties, federal laws and regulations, and their own state constitutions. The option if you don't like it is to either work to change the law or move where the state no longer exerts authority. This is our system. This is exactly the way it is supposed to work.

I don't. I also don't understand why what they choose to do in Kommifornia is in any way relevent to Indiana.

We obviously disagree on what role "the government" should play in each of our lives, IMHO it's none of the government's business if you, I or anyone else, chooses to live in a tent.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

We obviously disagree on what role "the government" should play in each of our lives, IMHO it's none of the government's business if you, I or anyone else, chooses to live in a tent.

I'm not providing a personal opinion. I am stating a fact. The fact is that states and local governments may regulate behaviors within their respective jurisdictions consistent with superior authority. Whether they should or not is a different question.

As I don't live in Sacramento, don't know their law, and don't know the history and issues that drove them to the decision to take the steps they have I am not in a position to second guess them for their actions.

I want as little government as possible in our lives. If I choose to live in a tent on my own property, absent any contractual restrictions I should be able to use my property as I see fit. Use of other people's property may be regulated. Even if it is public property.

 

[eldirector]

I think what many folks are missing here is that these homeless folks were not breaking the law by living in a tent. They were breaking the law by living along the river. If they had pitched a tent in a campground, or on private property (by invitation), I doubt anyone would have cared. Instead, they pitched a tent along what is either a) a public right of way, or b) private property (likely the Sac. utility company's). That's against the law even in good 'ole Indiana.

Now, the Sac. LEOs shouldn't be trashing their stuff. Either run them off, or arrest them (and take their stuff into evidence/holding).

So, uh, yeah. Pitching a tent is not illegal in Sacramento. Being homeless is not illegal in Sacramento. Trespassing is still illegal, even in Sacramento. I guess that just isn't a very interesting headline, though.

 

[rambone]

I don't. I also don't understand why what they choose to do in Kommifornia is in any way relevent to Indiana.

Who says we are limited to Indiana politics only? Why did we discuss the Gulf Oil Spill? The Arizona shooter? Military hiring techniques? Foreign relations? Iraq? Iran? Afghanistan? North Korea? China? Some dude with a website from Australia? The Alaskan Governor? Carry laws in Wisconsin? Border patrol? Some retired drill sergeant ranting about politics? Terrorism abroad? Louisiana hurricanes? WHO CARES RIGHT??

Would it make you more comfortable if I only posted pro-government articles? Hell, I could change the title of this one. "Thousands arrested after homelessness banned; Statists cheer as order returns to city"

Being homeless is not illegal in Sacramento. Trespassing is still illegal, even in Sacramento. I guess that just isn't a very interesting headline, though.

The second article says that the campers were on private property with permission. That leads me to believe that there is a problem with the act itself, not just the location.

 

[Bendrx]

I think the private property owner was suing the gov, not the homeless people. Also I think folks may be confusing the Federal govs rights and powers (as they should be) with the states rights and powers. The states and local gov can do alot that I wouldnt' bat an eye over, but those same things by the Feds get my blood preasure up in a heartbeat. Get it....heartbeat...blood preasure! Woot for the bad joke!!!!

 

[Arthur Dent]

Who says we are limited to Indiana politics only? Why did we discuss the Gulf Oil Spill? The Arizona shooter? Military hiring techniques? Foreign relations? Iraq? Iran? Afghanistan? North Korea? China? Some dude with a website from Australia? The Alaskan Governor? Carry laws in Wisconsin? Border patrol? Some retired drill sergeant ranting about politics? Terrorism abroad? Louisiana hurricanes? WHO CARES RIGHT??

Would it make you more comfortable if I only posted pro-government articles? Hell, I could change the title of this one. "Thousands arrested after homelessness banned; Statists cheer as order returns to city"




The second article says that the campers were on private property with permission. That leads me to believe that there is a problem with the act itself, not just the location.

A lot of people are okay with tyranny as long as they aren't affected. But when it pounds on their doorstep they're going to wonder why nobody is standing up for them. It'll be because everyone else is already gone.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Who says we are limited to Indiana politics only? Why did we discuss the Gulf Oil Spill? The Arizona shooter? Military hiring techniques? Foreign relations? Iraq? Iran? Afghanistan? North Korea? China? Some dude with a website from Australia? The Alaskan Governor? Carry laws in Wisconsin? Border patrol? Some retired drill sergeant ranting about politics? Terrorism abroad? Louisiana hurricanes? WHO CARES RIGHT??

Would it make you more comfortable if I only posted pro-government articles? Hell, I could change the title of this one. "Thousands arrested after homelessness banned; Statists cheer as order returns to city"

The second article says that the campers were on private property with permission. That leads me to believe that there is a problem with the act itself, not just the location.

I'm no more pro government than you are. I just don't live such a miserable friggin existance I need to sit at my PC all day ferreting out perceived slights and injustices that have occurred somewhere in the known world at some point during my life time and spam a forum full of people I don't know to tell everyone how pissed off I am and prove I am some sort of patriot, whatever that means. You're the other guy.

Most of the crap you post falls squarely into the I could give a hopping s*** about it bucket. Life sucks. We all get it.

You were on my troll list until you got vacationed. Guess I need to re-add you for my own mental health.

 

[Fletch]

I'm no more pro government than you are. I just don't live such a miserable friggin existance I need to sit at my PC all day ferreting out perceived slights and injustices that have occurred somewhere in the known world at some point during my life time and spam a forum full of people I don't know to tell everyone how pissed off I am and prove I am some sort of patriot, whatever that means.

No, you just live a miserable enough existence that you feel compelled to respond to nearly all such posts with nothing more constructive to add than your own smug sense of superiority seasoned with a dash of vitriol.

Seriously, if you don't care about any of this, don't respond to any of it. Is that so hard? Allow me to demonstrate: on the rest of the board there are literally thousands of threads with which I probably disagree, but to which I have not responded. The cool part is, it takes zero effort to do it.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

No, you just live a miserable enough existence that you feel compelled to respond to nearly all such posts with nothing more constructive to add than your own smug sense of superiority seasoned with a dash of vitriol.

Seriously, if you don't care about any of this, don't respond to any of it. Is that so hard? Allow me to demonstrate: on the rest of the board there are literally thousands of threads with which I probably disagree, but to which I have not responded. The cool part is, it takes zero effort to do it.

Touche.

 

[eldirector]

The second article says that the campers were on private property with permission. That leads me to believe that there is a problem with the act itself, not just the location.

So, just to be sure I am clear:
- a bunch of people break the law (local ordinance)
- local LE enforce the ordinance
- some of the citizens who broke the ordinance sue the city
- the outcome is pending

I would guess that if a bunch of non-homeless people did the same thing, we would have the same result. I know a few INGO-ers we could send out there to test this.

While I want as little .gov as possible, I am also a supporter of local government (as apposed to giving more control to state and federal government). It is much easier to influence locally. If the people of Sacramento want a "no camping" ordinance, then good for them. If some residents want to contest it, good for them. Hey, lookie! The system is working!