Criminalizing Poverty

That sounds like it sucks, I bet rather then reaching out to the JU community you could instead, attend the next town hall meeting, state your case, and appeal to the town's fund for people in need of some help. If the community is too small to provide a homeless shelter, and it looks like a large truckstop on google maps to be honest, perhaps you could get something taken care of within the local government.

I would imagine that anything inside a dumpster or garbage can becomes property of the city/town/muncipality even at the garbage dump, and to prevent liability issues the town would see fit to keep people out of the garbage. Yes it is too much government influence and control and interference in our lives, but since you do live in such a crappy small town, your single vote on things, does count for a lot more then mine does up in Appleton a community of 75,000.

Good luck.

That sounds like it sucks, I bet rather then reaching out to the JU community you could instead, attend the next town hall meeting, state your case, and appeal to the town's fund for people in need of some help.

This is NOT about trying to make a better community, Dan...

These people are specifically trying to run me and others out of town.

I realize you think all people are altruistic, but that is simply not the case. This town of 500 has the only active chapter of the KKK of any town in the TX Panhandle, and I have reason to believe they're well entrenched within the government. I was told in the wake of Hurricane Katrina when we offered housing for refugees that I would be run out of this town because "we don't want no N------s in this town". Do you REALLY think that sounds like the type of city that would be ready with ASSISTANCE for those who need it?

The dumpster thing is also not being done with safety concerns in mind, believe me. It's a minor issue, but you need to realize that most of the residents of this town are pretty much career scavengers. The law will NOT be equally enforced, and that is my concern. You don't make a law to enforce it on a certain segment of society.

I have no need for personal assistance for myself or my family. But I have a moral obligation to speak out against injustices, and this proposed ordinance WILL be an injustice when it is in place and in force. This community is one of the most hostile, least friendly communities I have EVER encountered...and the fact we don't have a way to move out of it at present leads me to believe I may have some higher purpose in being here.

I respect your POV even when I disagree with it, Dan, but the truth is, this proposed legislation is not in ANY way a benign peace of legislation. This is an ordinance specifically designed to harass and drive out the "undesirable elements. And it is precisely what is wrong with ANY legislation designed to enforce government approved lifestyles of ANY stripe.

Yeah, I feel like I'm dancing with the devil on this one, but it may be my best option.

Most likely, the ordinance will be passed with some vague notion of a minimum standard of living. The more vague it is, the better it is for you. Laws can be deemed unconstitutional if they are too vague to be enforced or followed properly.

The scavenging from dumpsters thing sounds pretty specific, though. But it is very contrary to the policy of recycling and conservation that every other place seems to follow. I don't know if that will help legally, though.

The scavenging from dumpsters thing sounds pretty specific, though. But it is very contrary to the policy of recycling and conservation that every other place seems to follow. I don't know if that will help legally, though.

Yeah, I'll let that one go, as it's obviously not a major concern. These guys want to fill up landfills, let 'em fill 'em up, heck, I don't care. But as for the minimum standard of living ordinance, I intend to follow every word of it and challenge it if it is appropriate to do so.

I'm not so much concerned about me. I AM, however, concerned about the direction the local government is taking. I really don't care to sit there and take these issues to court; I'd rather just be left alone. But they're making it clear that if we comply with every law they write, they'll just keep writing more laws until they can nail us on SOMETHING. Might be a good time to give the state AG's office a call and see if they want to take a look at things. I could bust them on Fair Housing laws with no difficulty for their refusal to allow blacks to move into town.

You know what you're right Gideon, go get em. Not really sure a law to stop career scavengers is really all that big of a deal. I would imagine in a small town it might lead to some jealousy or what not but I don't live there. My advice to you is, try to beat em if you can. If not get out of Dodge, a town of 500 with little or no economic future, is no place to raise a family or live your life if you aren't welcome.

"many of the citizens are elderly and on fixed incomes."

Old people with nothing better to do. Up here they sometimes try to get people to not have flag poles with flags on em. Why can't people just get along you know, mind their own damn business, post their gripes online, lol.

Upon re-reading your initial post as well as the racial hatred comments, along with the KKK, thing. It's a small town, it's a dying town, and old people don't let go of old hate. Fighting the situation may give you satisfcation, but in the long run it will only cause you more resentment, and ill will. Elderly do not let go of hate, they do not forgive, and they have nothing better to do, but as you say make up their own rules, cause they were there first, and spend their day's bugging up the ass, living on fixed income.

This isn't to say all elderly people are bad or I hate them all but I do know that racial hatred in the south still exists in part because of the "wisdom" passed down by the elderly not by the fact that racial hatred is right.

It is a tough break and I'll support you in whatever way I can, not sure what that would be. I respect your decision to stand up and fight it tremendously. Just make sure it's worth it to yourself. Because if it is not, then for me, I would abdicate and let them be racist and bigoted, and isolated, and the sands of time bury their tiny little hate town.

#1 I think this is vile, and people who would pass such are scum.

#2 I'm not sure I can agree that they shouldn't be allowed to pass such. What is your constitutional basis for telling them that they can't decide on this themselves?

This is not new Gideon.  After all, Merry Olde England had debtors prisons hundreds of years ago!  Where do you think Georgia and Australia came from?

Where do you think Georgia and Australia came from?

Heh, good point.

I don't see how people can be like this....it hurts my brain to try and find their rationale...well, I could probably find it, but I sure as hell wouldn't accept it.

~Zoo

Many communities have laws against dumpster diving so that isn't exactly new. As for the standard of living thing, it's hard to know what if anything is wrong with it without knowing specifics. If it's simply a requirement for residential properties to have running water and toilets many communities have such laws already. If it's something more than that specifics would be needed.

Yeah, I assume there's more to it than just the running water and dumpster diving. If that's all it is then there's no possible way to fight it. I've never lived in-town that the community didn't require running water.

To me, and I'm sorry Gid, but if I was going to be Libertarian about it, I'd have to say they have the right to make what rules they want, and you have the right to live there or not.

#2 I'm not sure I can agree that they shouldn't be allowed to pass such. What is your constitutional basis for telling them that they can't decide on this themselves?

For one thing, this isn't being put to a popular vote. We have no say in the matter other than voting the bums out of opffice and overturning their dirty work.

For another, you REALLY believe they should be allowed to regulate what people do on their own property, Baker? Come on, this devil's advocate shit really doesn't become you.

I already basically conceded the dumpster diving issue. To me, that's a nonissue, although it is quite ridiculous and petty. But to regulate "a minimum standard of living" takes them beyond my property line, beyond my front door, where they were NEVER intended to be allowed to go.

Your logic could well be extended to a law to execute certain ethnic groups. A majority vote should not negate individual, inalienable rights.

"For one thing, this isn't being put to a popular vote. We have no say in the matter other than voting the bums out of opffice and overturning their dirty work."

Hey, there's very little that gets put to a popular vote in this country. What percent of city council decisions around the country get opened up to a referendum, would you say? A tenth of a percent?

"For another, you REALLY believe they should be allowed to regulate what people do on their own property, Baker? Come on, this devil's advocate shit really doesn't become you."

Democracy's advocate, not Devil's. I don't believe there is anything Libertarian about limiting people's right to govern themselves based upon ideals that no one agreed upon beforehand. I disagree with a lot of community standards, but I don't believe it is just to impose my ideals on the majority based upon values they don't share, either.

"But to regulate "a minimum standard of living" takes them beyond my property line, beyond my front door, where they were NEVER intended to be allowed to go."

Again, you've not said what this means. If all it is is requiring people to have sewage and running water, you don't have a leg to stand on. You'll forgive me for expressing my doubts considering people are asking and you aren't giving any details.

"Your logic could well be extended to a law to execute certain ethnic groups. A majority vote should not negate individual, inalienable rights."

What rights? Please, if you would, lay them out for us. You need to, because that is what will validate taking away the rights of the town to create policy for itself. You want to tell them they can't make a rule, but then you aren't really lining out much of a reason why.

allo?

You can dismiss my argument as me playing the devil's advocate, but in reality you know I have written on this, and it is my main beef with Libertarianism. When you take the step to tie the hands of your community, you need a reason for them to be unable to democratically legislate their existence.

Libertarianism assumes that less government is better, and to an extreme. In a lot of areas you may well be right. You may well be right on this issue. I don't think, though, that you can just say "well, duh" and expect the people of your community to follow along.

So, I'll ask again. What imposition is this statute creating? What constitutional right are they invading? As has been said, if it is just requiring running water and sewage, I think you've not got a leg to stand on.

How many people in the entire US, would you say, would have a problem with requiring running water in a home? 1%? How many people in a town setting would want to live next door to people who have an outhouse?

So, in this case, what is your precedent for challenging the majority in a Democracy? Forgive me, but I believe you have to have a reason to beat us out of our right to make laws concerning our lives.

My gal pal is a health inspector for the state of ohio.

You can not have a sink in your house or shed, on your own property, without it being attached to an operable septic system, or country sewage system. She not only fines people who violate this, but also tapes off their houses after telling them they have ten minutes to collect their things and vacate.

I think a lot of states have similar things all under "health dept."

Are you familiar with cholera, Tova? There's a reason why clean water and efficient sewage systems coincide with healthy populations.

I've lived a lot of my life in areas that didn't have public water and sewage systems. There were people like us who always had clean water and a septic tank that worked. There were people who didn't give a damn about their kids and let them drink dirty water and let their toilet empty out into the creek their kids played in.

Gideon hasn't answered questions as to what this statute entails. I don't want to assume it is just about running water, but his silence worries me. I want to believe he has more reason than that to be outraged. If that is all it is though, there's plenty of good reasons why the rest of the community has a stake in everyone having clean water.

Are you familiar with cholera, Tova? There's a reason why clean water and efficient sewage systems coincide with healthy populations.

I wasn't advocating change Baker...I was just commenting on how the state of Ohio already has some of the things Gid is complaining about in place. Therefore its not just his small town.

I've just been reading the responses to your article, and you reactions to them. It seems to me your problem with the proposals has more to do with the selective enforcement than the laws themselves.

I think you should be more public with who among the city counsel's own relatives might be affected by this law... if nothing else, it would expose the selectivity of the enforcement.

You'll forgive me for expressing my doubts considering people are asking and you aren't giving any details.

It's pretty hard since they're still working on the ordinance, Baker. When I get mind reading powers, I'll let you know. You'll know because I'll make everything I can off of it.

I've just been reading the responses to your article, and you reactions to them. It seems to me your problem with the proposals has more to do with the selective enforcement than the laws themselves.

Bingo, Para. I'm glad SOMEONE gets it.

In all probability, the law will be reasonable. This city, after all, can ill afford a lawsuit. But here's the details, in a nutshell:

They started enforcing a leash ordinance that's been on the books for years. Fine with me. I bought a chain and our dog went on the leash. They began fining certain people, while the ex-mayor's dog still makes a routine appearance at every home football game, and hangs out all day at the school, and another former councilman's dog has the run of the town. They issued a WARNING to us for "dog at large" based on unsubstantiated allegations; in fact, our dog is never off of a leash or a chain. Ever. While it kills me to do this, I will do what is reasonably expected of me.

They started enforcing a "high weeds and junk" ordinance that's been on the book for years. Again, fine with me. The law's the law, and if I don't like it, I'll work to change it. Surprise, surprise. The usual suspects got tickets, while the city council members and other prominent folks around town did not.

We have gained a reputation, because we dare to help out those less fortunate. Many around town want these people out of town, and refuse to help them. In the case of the one family, their water was shut off. While I would not make the same choices they make, I don't see anything in the Bible about loving one's neighbour that is CONDITIONAL for a believing Christian. So we allowed these friends to fill up their water off of our hose. Immediately after that, we were double billed on our water bill by the city. We took care of it, but we had to make several calls to do it. Shortly after THAT, the marshall came by with the warning for dog at large, when our dog was not at large and we were in full compliance with the law. Now Baker may believe that the city has full right to selectively enforce the law and target certain citizens to the exclusion of others, and he may parade himself as a champion of democracy, but wasn't that, in essence, what the Civil Rights Movement was about? About NOT using the tyranny of the majority to oppress the few?

While the law being considered may well be reasonable, how, in fact, will they enforce the minimum standards of living law? Am I required to allow them to search my home without a warrant? Sorry, folks, gonna stand by the 4th amendment on this one.

The truth is, this city does not have the funds to enforce the laws it has, let alone new ones. Stray dogs roam our streets (which is why I don't grouse about the leash laws, just about the fact that they don't do anything about the dogs that are out there), and they will not take them to the pound because they simply cannot afford it. As a result, the nearest sizable city uses us as a dumping ground for strays, and the problem worsens. Our roads are probably among the worst in the regoin, which is saying something, because the city can't afford the cost of running maintainers...and the city is trying to write and enforce new laws? This is not about creating a better community, it's about using the position of office as a position of control for those "under you". And it is entirely INconsistent with a democracy, actually.

Now Baker may believe that the city has full right to selectively enforce the law and target certain citizens to the exclusion of others, and he may parade himself as a champion of democracy, but wasn't that, in essence, what the Civil Rights Movement was about? About NOT using the tyranny of the majority to oppress the few?

I don't think he was, Gid. I think he was concerned that the community was proposing new laws that would only realistically affect a few and you felt they had no right to do so.

Deliberate misapplication of laws is a crime. Could you call in the state (or federal; I don't know how your system works) anti-corruption squad to have a look-see? It may be useful too to take some video/photographic evidence of the councilmen's lawbreaking and then provide a copy to the local police. It would create a paper trail and, if the police doesn't follow up your evidence despite following up on lesser evidence, could be used to smear them quite effectively.

Deliberate misapplication of laws is a crime. Could you call in the state (or federal; I don't know how your system works) anti-corruption squad to have a look-see?

We have the state AG's office. I am trying to find out what we would need to do to bring an investigation.

Honestly, I'd rather just live in peace. But the powers that be have made it clear that's not going to happen. Not HERE, at least.

"While the law being considered may well be reasonable, how, in fact, will they enforce the minimum standards of living law? "

If all it entails is electricity and water and the like, they can just check to see if you are subscribed to those services.

"Now Baker may believe that the city has full right to selectively enforce the law and target certain citizens to the exclusion of others, and he may parade himself as a champion of democracy, but wasn't that, in essence, what the Civil Rights Movement was about?"

Come on. When you're being lynched and they don't let you enter the restaurant from the front door we might say this is 'about' the same thing as the civil rights movement. This is about your incessant need to play Al Sharpton at the cost of your peace of mind and peaceful cohabitation with your community.

The reality of this situation is that there will always be something like this. You picked a town to live in where the main players don't share your values, and you think it is your job to straighten them out. Well, they think it is their job to straighten you out. You're two sides of the same coin.

You don't like the way this country works. Good for you. You keep right on voting and running for office. You need, though, to stop pretending that the founding fathers intended a nation the way you would craft it, or that your ideals are somehow objectively superior. I believe Democracy is about people being able to run their nation, state, and community the way they want to, and one disgruntled guy with a persecution complex really shouldn't be able to straighten everyone else out.

"We have the state AG's office. I am trying to find out what we would need to do to bring an investigation."

And what will happen when they get caught heinously enforcing leash laws in an unfair way? Nothing. Then you'll have to live with the people who don't like you after you've brought an investigation down on them. I feel sorry for you.

Anyone who knows me knows I hate neighborhood charters and lawn laws and bullshit like that. I think it is insipid and anal. I need more than just my opinion to impose my judgment of such on the people of my community, though.

So when they come to my door and tell me my yard is too tall, sure, I could complain that someone else's yard is also too tall, but that doesn't mean I'm not breaking the ordinance. I have to accept that they have the right to make the ordinance, and by living in the community I've submitted myself to their approval.

If I start driving around measuring other people's yards I've just become as caustic as they are. Then they hate me even more, and are more tempted to abuse their power to get at me. The root of the problem isn't the abuses, it's the fact you don't get along with your community.

I guess what annoys me the most about this is that you are here claiming they are "criminalizing poverty" yadda yadda, and then when asked what they are doing you say you don't know, you aren't a mind reader. Isn't this urge to outrage, assuming the worst before the ordinance is even lined out, not, itself, the problem?