Descripción
Abandoned RV parked on the street and blocking street
también preguntó...
Q. Where is the homeless encampment in relation to the address given? EX:Behind the building, up the embankment, etc.
A. parked near the park off Wood St & 20th
A. parked near the park off Wood St & 20th
Q. How many individuals are living in the encampment?
A. 1
A. 1
Q. How many vehicles/RVs/tents/structures are at the encampment?
A. 1
A. 1
Q. If RV, is the RV leaking (black water) or is body waste present?
A. Unknown
A. Unknown
Q. Is there evidence of open fires?
A. Unknown
A. Unknown
Q. What other City departments have been notified? EX: OPD, OFD, DOT, Oak311, Public Works, etc.
A. Oak 311
A. Oak 311
Q. What is the report/complaint, as it relates to homelessness? EX:Parking violations, traffic violations, etc.
A. parked on street where oncoming traffic is consistent
A. parked on street where oncoming traffic is consistent
88 Comentars
Reconocido City of Oakland (Oficial verificado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
"After they were told to leave." Whoever told them to leave was in the wrong. They're parked on a public street, which belongs to everyone.
If people were intimidated into temporarily leaving a vehicle, that doesn't make it "abandoned". If someone gets pneumonia or dies of exposure out on the streets in the cold because their vehicle was towed away, and they had no shelter, will you feel sorry for them then? Or still not enough?
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
D (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Oakland_CA (Usuario registrado)
Danny (Usuario registrado)
Campbell Street Neighbor (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Oakland_CA (Usuario registrado)
Starchild - why are you, a resident of San Francisco, obsessed with trolling the members of the Oakland community on 311? Everyone, please take note that Starchild is a libertarian troll, and not a member of this community. I recommend that everyone case all discussion with Starchild as they are not a good faith actor.
https://www.kalw.org/show/crosscurrents/2016-11-01/starchild-star-of-the-san-francisco-libertarian-party
Beat7xReport (Usuario registrado)
time2emit (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Anonymous (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Not everyone has a home or a family to go home to, Yeezy. Homeless people also include individuals of all ethnicities, some of them children.
When you say homeless have "destroyed this place", you are lumping everyone together and stereotyping/disparaging them as a group. But people are individuals. As such, they should be held responsible for their *individual* actions, not blamed for the actions of others just because those others happen to have something in common with them.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
JM – As I've said repeatedly, my comments in this forum are heartfelt community engagement, and not about tro||ing anyone.
I've also consistently said that where I live doesn't matter, and that having a sound view on an issue doesn't depend on geographical proximity. I never claimed to be an Oakland resident, and nothing I've posted here has been in bad faith. In any case, I consider San Francisco and Oakland to be part of the same Bay Area community, with similar cultural values, and I'm in Oakland frequently, so I reject the "not a member of this community" accusation.
Finally JM, your allegation that I'm "not a good faith actor" is extremely ironic given that you just doxxed me, quite possibly in violation of the law:
https://joindeleteme.com/blog/is-doxxing-illegal-in-california/
If I am further harassed as a result, I will hold you responsible. I also think using an anonymous account to dox someone who is an ordinary private citizen and not a government official is a cowardly and reprehensible act.
Danny (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Danny, I'm not sure how you would know whether or not the homeless people around Prescott have children. Just because children aren't living there with them, doesn't mean they don't have any children.
I don't condone violence, but if you are going out as a vigilante and "cleaning up" homeless encampments (i.e. trashing people's possessions), I'm not surprised you've been attacked. That's not a very smart or neighborly thing to do. But if you engage people in a positive, respectful manner, and offer to help them clean up, you may find some of them much more receptive.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Beat7xReport – Are there legal places in area for people to park RVs that you would consider appropriate? If so, letting RV owners know about them might be appreciated. If there aren't, that very likely has something to do with them parking on the streets.
Prostitution and drug manufacture/sales/use are not real crimes. It is not the activities themselves that are the cause of any safety issues, but their criminalization. Criminalizing these types of consensual actions among adults is futile and wrong, and attempting to police them only leads to black market violence and real crime, wastes taxpayer resources, destroys lives, and divides the community.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
time2emit – Have you spoken to the homeless folks who've allegedly refused shelter? There are often very legitimate, practical reasons why particular "offers" of shelter don't work for people, from safety concerns to rules about not allowing pets, visitors, possessions, requiring curfews or onerous sign-up procedures, limiting the time people can stay in them (what's the point moving across town if you're just going to have to move again in a few days?), etc.
This blog post discusses the issue – https://palletshelter.com/blog/why-the-homeless-dont-accept-shelter/
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Speak for yourself, Yeezy. Complaining about other people's drugs, fires, filth, etc., as if you're so much more virtuous, is a form of "virtue signaling" if anything is.
We've all been gaslighted for years to think that prohibiting victimless "crimes" works, even though the evidence that it doesn't work is all around us!
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy, I'm not your master of ANY color. I want you to be free. That includes being able to move around. I don't want to tell anyone they can't move somewhere, or they have to stay living in a place where they don't like their neighbors who take different drugs than they do or whatever.
If you lost your home and were on the streets, and other people who still had houses were trying to drive you out of the neighborhood, I would stand up for you and your rights.
Lots of people escape their children, or their parents. I want them to be able to escape, don't you? Anyone trying to prevent them from escaping would be treating them like prisoners or slaves.
Lots of people choose to have fires, drugs, and prostitution around. They wouldn't do that unless they saw benefit in these things. I want people to be able to choose to have things they feel are beneficial to them around, don't you? Anyone trying to prevent people from having nice things would be acting like their master. You're not here to be anyone's masta, are you?
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy, I'm not your master of ANY color. I want you to be free. That includes being able to move around. I don't want to tell anyone they can't move somewhere, or they have to stay living in a place where they don't like their neighbors who take different drugs than they do or whatever.
If you lost your home and were on the streets, and other people who still had houses were trying to drive you out of the neighborhood, I would stand up for you and your rights.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Lots of people escape their children, or their parents. I want them to be able to escape, don't you? Anyone trying to prevent them from esc@ping would be treating them like pris0ners or sla@ves.
Lots of people choose to have fires, drugs, and pr0stitution around. They wouldn't do that unless they saw benefit in these things. I want people to be able to choose to have things they feel are beneficial to them around, don't you? Anyone trying to prevent people from having nice things would be acting like their master. You're not here to be anyone's masta, are you?
An anonymous SeeClickFix user (Usuario registrado)
Danny (Usuario registrado)
I’m grateful every day for the home I worked hard for. The job I been with 36 years. I’ve been in recovery 42 years. I changed the things I could to make life worth living.
I’m also OCD and learning to deal with that by cleaning the area.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Danny – Many people think one of those rules for living in society should be, don't try to criminalize poor and homeless people for existing in public space. Or put another way, take responsibility for your own life instead of trying to control others.
I do think OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder) or something like it, may be related to both the hoarding impulses of some homeless people who accumulate lots of stuff on the streets, and the impulses of some other folks to try to control and micro-manage how other people use the public spaces that belong to everyone.
Anonymous (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
East bay resident (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
East bay resident – I don't think you can read other people's minds, so not sure how you can claim to know that I'm not influencing anyone here, or don't have any credibility. Sounds like wishful thinking on your part by someone who's uncomfortable with the issues that I raise.
The fact of someone not having "skin in the game" by living in the same neighborhood that someone is posting about here actually tends to make them more able to look at the situation objectively. Often when someone is too close to a situation it can be difficult for them to take an unbiased perspective.
I'm not advocating against your interests, I'm advocating FOR the interests of those who are targeted by unnecessary and wrongful complaints trying to sic government on them, filed by people on the misguided premise that government, or the majority of voters, are more entitled to tell individuals how to live their lives than those individuals are themselves.
THAT, not standing for freedom and social equality for everyone, is the REAL paternalism going on here!
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy – You want people to work? Guess what: Drug sales, prostitution, recycling, selling stuff on the street, etc., IS working.
It may not be the kind of work you want for yourself, but that's okay, because you're not the one doing it. I'm not saying what work other people should do, I'm saying they can decide for themselves. Why are YOU trying to be their master by telling them what work is or isn't acceptable for them to do?
People who migrate from other countries often are very poor and do work very hard, so I'm glad to hear you recognize this and that you aren't intolerant of them as well.
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
The difference you are advocating for illegal work. You are advocating to crime and enabling of criminal behavior. Do you a “Masta of ethics in homelessness and bshtting”.
What a dispcable and smb you are!!!!
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy – Lots of things, including many types of honest work, are deemed illegal by government. That doesn't mean they are actual crimes.
The law is not always neutral, admirable, or beneficial to the community. Slavery was the law. And while chattel slavery is gone, vestiges of that same authoritarian, controlling mentality remain baked into today's laws – jury duty, the draft, compulsory education, taxation.
At their best, laws are a defense mechanism for society against people who would commit aggression and violate the life, liberty, or property of others. But when they go beyond this, and are used to commit aggression against people, to control and limit people's choices even when those choices are not harming anyone else, respect for the law declines, and the laws end up doing more harm than good.
They tear at the social fabric, make people lose respect for government and feel alienated from their communities, pit neighbor against neighbor as everyone struggles to control the government so that they can use its power and its laws to impose their vision on their neighbors.
Enforcing bad or unnecessary laws actually harms quality of life, both for the victims of the enforcement, and for others who suffer when resources are diverted from more legitimate and widely supported community priorities.
Imagine for instance if the cops were out there rigorously pulling people over and ticketing them every time a car or bicycle failed to come to a complete stop at a stopsign or light, failed to signal, or was going 5 MPH over the speed limit.
Would the community be happier and better off as a result? Hardly. A lot of people would be economically harmed, not to mention subjected to additional stress and the wasting of their time, while other needs went neglected.
Real morality isn't based on what's legal or illegal, but on what's right and wrong.
Martin Luther King, whose birthday we just celebrated, said that unjust laws deserve to be broken, and I agree. Are you calling him "despicable", an "smb" (whatever that's supposed to be), and a "masta of... bshtting" as well?
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy – Lots of things, including many types of honest work, are deemed illegal by government. That doesn't mean they are actual crimes.
The law is not always neutral, admirable, or beneficial to the community. Slavery was the law. And while chattel slavery is gone, vestiges of that same authoritarian, controlling mentality remain baked into today's laws – jury duty, the draft, compulsory education, taxation.
At their best, laws are a defense mechanism for society against people who would commit aggression and violate the life, liberty, or property of others. But when they go beyond this, and are used to commit aggression against people, to control and limit people's choices even when those choices are not harming anyone else, respect for the law declines, and the laws end up doing more harm than good.
They tear at the social fabric, make people lose respect for government and feel ali3nated from their communities, pit neighbor against neighbor as everyone struggles to control the government so that they can use its power and its laws to impose their vision on their neighbors.
Enforcing bad or unnecessary laws actually harms quality of life, both for the victims of the enforcement, and for others who suffer when resources are diverted from more legitimate and widely supported community priorities.
Imagine for instance if the cops were out there rigorously pulling people over and ticketing them every time a car or bicycle failed to come to a complete stop at a stopsign or light, failed to signal, or was going 5 MPH over the speed limit.
Would the community be happier and better off as a result? Hardly. A lot of people would be economically harmed, not to mention subjected to additional stress and the wasting of their time, while other needs went neglected.
Real morality isn't based on what's legal or illegal, but on what's right and wrong.
Martin Luther King, whose birthday we just celebrated, said that unjust laws deserve to be broken, and I agree. Are you calling him "despicable", an "smb" (whatever that's supposed to be), and a "masta of... bshtting" as well?
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy – Lots of things, including many types of honest work, are deemed illegal by government. That doesn't mean they are all actual crimes.
The law is not always neutral, admirable, or beneficial to the community. Slavery was the law. And while chattel slavery is gone, vestiges of that same authoritarian, controlling mentality remain baked into today's laws – jury duty, the draft, compulsory education, taxation.
At their best, laws are a defense mechanism for society against people who would commit aggression and violate the life, liberty, or property of others. But when they go beyond this, and are used to commit aggression against people, to control and limit people's choices even when those choices are not harming anyone else, respect for the law declines, and the laws end up doing more harm than good.
They tear at the social fabric, make people lose respect for government and feel ali3nated from their communities, pit neighbor against neighbor as everyone struggles to control the government so that they can use its power and its laws to impose their vision on their neighbors.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy – Lots of things, including many types of honest work, are deemed illegal by government. That doesn't mean they are actual crimes.
The law is not always neutral, admirable, or beneficial to the community. Slavery was the law. And while chattel slavery is gone, vestiges of that same authoritarian, controlling mentality remain baked into today's laws – jury duty, the draft, compulsory education, taxation.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy – Lots of things, including many types of honest work, are deemed illegal by government. That doesn't mean they are actual crimes.
The law isn't always neutral, admirable, or beneficial to the community. Sl@very was the law. And while chattel sl@very is gone, vestiges of that same authoritarian, controlling mentality remain baked into today's laws – jury duty, the draft, compulsory education, taxation.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
At their best, laws are a defense mechanism for society against people who would commit aggression and violate the life, liberty, or property of others. But when they go beyond this, and are used to commit aggression against people, to control and limit people's choices even when those choices are not harming anyone else, respect for the law declines, and the laws end up doing more harm than good.
They tear at the social fabric, make people lose respect for government and feel ali3nated from their communities, pit neighbor against neighbor as everyone struggles to control the government so that they can use its power and its laws to impose their vision on their neighbors.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Enforcing bad or unnecessary laws actually harms quality of life, both for the victims of the enforcement, and for others who suffer when resources are diverted from more legitimate and widely supported community priorities.
Imagine for instance if the cops were out there rigorously pulling people over and ticketing them every time a car or bicycle failed to come to a complete stop at a stopsign or light, failed to signal, or was going 5 MPH over the speed limit.
Would the community be happier and better off as a result? Hardly. A lot of people would be economically harmed, not to mention subjected to additional stress and the wasting of their time, while other needs went neglected.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Real morality isn't based on what's legal or illegal, but on what's right and wrong.
Martin Luther King, whose birthday we just celebrated, said that unjust laws deserve to be broken, and I agree. Are you calling him "despicable", an "smb" (whatever that's supposed to be), and a "masta of... bshtting" as well?
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy – You're calling me a dummy when you can't even spell the word correctly or put together a proper sentence! LOL...
Don't feel sorry for me, feel sorry for your homeless neighbors whom you're encouraging people to sn|tch on for no good reason.
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
East bay resident (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
An anonymous SeeClickFix user (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
"East bay resident" – I see you trying to manufacture a racial issue where there is none.
I was not talking to "black and brown people", let alone trying to insult their intelligence. I was responding to ONE INDIVIDUAL, Yeezy, who called me a dummy without being able to spell the word properly or use it in a grammatically correct sentence.
If pointing out those facts is "talking down to them", so be it. It has nothing to do with anyone else. If your goal is to smear me as a racist, you're going to have to do better than that.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
"anonymous" – Maybe you shouldn't be publishing unsubstantiated assumptions about people when you can't be bothered to actually read what they have to say in the forum in which you are commenting about them, because it's not entertaining enough for you.
You don't think any of the homeless people on the streets have worked hard to build something, dealt with stress?
You want to CHARGE people for sitting on the PUBLIC streets that their tax dollars help pay for?
You accuse homeless people as a group of destroying the neighborhoods they live in, when it is people like yourself who are undermining the peace and harmony of those neighborhoods by sn|tching on your unhoused neighbors rather than trying to work out any issues with them directly as fellow residents.
That's not helping people who want to help themselves.
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy – Our FIRST social responsibility is to respect the basic human rights, civil rights, dignity, and autonomy of others.
When you attack and disparage homeless people as a group, you are doing exactly the opposite. You are acting like Donald Trump when he stereotypes undocumented Mexican migrants as criminals, rapists, and animals.
You ARE correct that I want people to think for themselves and not just blindly obey The Law™, regardless of whether it is just or it is being justly enforced. But when you say my "religion" is letting people do what they want – and when have ACTUAL masters ever respected people's freedom like that? – you are ignoring the necessary caveat that I include, namely, "as long as you are not harming others", i.e. not violating their rights by initiating force or fraud against them.
When I say "not violating their rights by initiating force or fraud against them", I am NOT talking down to you, I am putting it in precise terms that might go over the heads of some. And I will go a step further and provide you with a link that goes in depth into the history of this idea and what it means:
https://www.procesosdemercado.com/index.php/inicio/article/view/36/117
But if you have the intelligence to actually understand and think about what I'm saying, or what Edward Fuller is saying in the article linked above, you certainly haven't been showing it. Your comments to me so far have been poorly written and more about hurling cheap insults than articulating or defending the "value base" you claim to hold.
There are lots of black and brown people out there who DO get it however, and who would probably be among the first to tell you that you're making yourself look like a fool.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy – Our FIRST social responsibility is to respect the basic human rights, civil rights, dignity, and autonomy of others.
When you attack and disparage homeless people as a group, you are doing exactly the opposite. You are acting like Donald Trump when he stereotypes undocumented Mexican migrants as criminals, r@pists, and animals.
You ARE correct that I want people to think for themselves and not just blindly obey The Law™, regardless of whether it is just or it is being justly enforced. But when you say my "religion" is letting people do what they want – and when have ACTUAL masters ever respected people's freedom like that? – you are ignoring the necessary caveat that I include, namely, "as long as you are not harming others", i.e. not violating their rights by initiating force or fraud against them.
When I say "not violating their rights by initiating force or fraud against them", I am NOT talking down to you, I am putting it in precise terms that might go over the heads of some. And I will go a step further and provide you with a link that goes in depth into the history of this idea and what it means:
https://www.procesosdemercado.com/index.php/inicio/article/view/36/117
But if you have the intelligence to actually understand and think about what I'm saying, or what Edward Fuller is saying in the article linked above, you certainly haven't been showing it. Your comments to me so far have been poorly written and more about hurling cheap insults than articulating or defending the "value base" you claim to hold.
There are lots of black and brown people out there who DO get it however, and who would probably be among the first to tell you that you're making yourself look like a fool.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy – Our FIRST social responsibility is to respect the basic human rights, civil rights, dignity, and autonomy of others.
When you attack and disparage homeless people as a group, you are doing exactly the opposite. You are acting like Donald Trump when he stereotypes undocumented Mexican migrants as criminals, r@pists, and animals.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy – Our FIRST social responsibility is to respect the basic human rights, civil rights, dignity, and autonomy of others.
When you att@ck and disp@rage homeless people as a group, you are doing exactly the opposite. You are acting like Donald Trump when he stere0types undocumented Mexican migrants as crimin@ls, r@pists, and anim@ls.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy – Our FIRST social responsibility is to respect the basic human rights, civil rights, dignity, and autonomy of others.
When you att@ck and disparage homeless people as a group, you are doing exactly the opposite. You are acting like Donald Trump when he stere0types undocumented Mexican migrants as crimin@ls, r@pists, and anim@ls.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy – Our FIRST social responsibility is to respect the basic human rights, civil rights, dignity, and autonomy of others.
See attached screenshot for more that the website's flawed comment-screening algorithm was blocking for unknown reasons.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
You ARE correct Yeezy that I want people to think for themselves and not just blindly obey The Law™, regardless of whether it is just or it is being justly enforced.
But when you say my "religion" is letting people do what they want – and when have ACTUAL masters ever respected people's freedom like that? – you are ignoring the necessary caveat that I include, namely, "as long as you are not harming others", i.e. not violating their rights by initiating force or fraud against them.
When I say "not violating their rights by initiating force or fraud against them", I am NOT talking down to you, I am putting it in precise terms that might go over the heads of some. And I will go a step further and provide you with a link that goes in depth into the history of this idea and what it means:
https://www.procesosdemercado.com/index.php/inicio/article/view/36/117
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
But if you have the intelligence to actually understand and think about what I'm saying, or what Edward Fuller is saying in the article linked above Yeezy, you certainly haven't been showing it.
Your comments to me so far have been poorly written and more about hurling cheap insults than articulating or defending the "value base" you claim to represent.
There are lots of black and brown people out there who DO get it however, and who would probably be among the first to tell you that you're making yourself look like a fool.
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
An anonymous SeeClickFix user (Usuario registrado)
It’s not about entertaining me, it’s the simple fact that you are not understanding. Which you are entitled to your own opinion. So live free and enjoy! I will keep on doing me :)
I do want to thank you for all these comments, because it just shows me I’m doing the right thing and encourages me to post even more to help my community I live in look presentable for family and kids. So thank! :) Posting another one today :)
An anonymous SeeClickFix user (Usuario registrado)
And please don’t compare what MLK preached to this mess. They are NOT related! That is just a horrible comparison and low key as a black individual, I’m offended.
I will not be reading or commenting on this post anymore, I have a job to get to.
Peace out and enjoy your rant, while I continue to help my community stay clean. Thank you.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Homeless people ARE our fellow residents, "anonymous", whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not. They may not have homes, but they still reside here. They are human beings like you and I.
And if you think they don't pay taxes, you're sadly mistaken. They pay sales taxes when they buy stuff from stores; many also pay gas taxes, telephony taxes, Social Security taxes, etc. Like all of us, they pay the massive hidden tax of inflation caused by government printing and spending money. Many were previously renters who lost their homes as a result of being unable to make the rent, the high costs of which are in part a result of landlords having to pay property taxes and other taxes and fees that get passed along to tenants.
Now you claim that it's not about you being bored, but about me not understanding. What do you want me to understand that you think I don't understand? I've been seeing and responding to NIMBYism for years – the kind of stuff you're saying isn't new to my ears.
Whether prostitution and selling drugs are "ok" or not isn't the point – the point is that people shouldn't be criminalized for these things when they are voluntary and consensual. Prohibition is immoral and doesn't work. You may not like prostitution or drug use, and that's okay. We don't all have to like each other's lifestyles.
The fact is that most Americans use LOTS of drugs and a huge percentage of us have paid for or been paid for sexual services as well. Some people want to get on a high horse about other people using drugs that government calls "illegal" (even though the Feds have no constitutional authority to ban any drugs since the 21st Amendment was adopted), while themselves using alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, painkillers, weight loss drugs, etc. Some of these legal drugs are no less dangerous than the criminalized ones. Other people get judgemental about prostitution, while seeking out partners with money for dating or marriage, participating in marketing efforts that rely on sex appeal to sell products or services, etc. Hello!
I'm not saying Martin Luther King had all the answers or that he and I are on the same page on everything, but I definitely think he would have agreed with me about not scapegoating and stereotyping the poor and homeless, accusing them of "ruin(ing) our streets" (which are THEIR streets too), etc. He understood that there are structural issues surrounding poverty, and saw that it's wrong to discriminate against people based on group characteristics rather than treating people as individuals based on the content of their character.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Homeless people ARE our fellow residents, "anonymous", whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not. They may not have homes, but they still reside here. They are human beings like you and I.
And if you think they don't pay taxes, you're sadly mistaken. They pay sales taxes when they buy stuff from stores; many also pay gas taxes, telephony taxes, Social Security taxes, etc. Like all of us, they pay the massive hidden tax of inflation caused by government printing and spending money. Many were previously renters who lost their homes as a result of being unable to make the rent, the high costs of which are in part a result of landlords having to pay property taxes and other taxes and fees that get passed along to tenants.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Whether prostitution and selling drugs are "ok" or not isn't the point – the point is that people shouldn't be criminalized for these things when they are voluntary and consensual. Prohibition is immoral and doesn't work. You may not like prostitution or drug use, and that's okay. We don't all have to like each other's lifestyles.
The fact is that most Americans use LOTS of drugs and a huge percentage of us have paid for and/or been paid for s3xual services as well.
Some people want to get on a high horse about other people using drugs that government calls "illegal" (even though the Feds have no constitutional authority to ban any drugs since the 21st Amendment was adopted), while themselves using alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, painkillers, weight loss drugs, etc. Some of these legal drugs are no less dangerous than the criminalized ones.
Other people get judgemental about prostitution, while seeking out partners with money for dating or marriage, participating in marketing efforts that rely on s3x appeal to sell products or services, etc. Hello!
I'm not saying Martin Luther King had all the answers or that he and I are on the same page on everything, but I definitely think he would have agreed with me about not scapegoating and stereotyping the poor and homeless, accusing them of "ruin(ing) our streets" (which are THEIR streets too), etc. He understood that there are structural issues surrounding poverty, and saw that it's wrong to discriminate against people based on group characteristics rather than treating people as individuals based on the content of their character.
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Actually my education was not particularly expensive, Yeezy.
But I'd say whatever you (or the taxpayers) paid for yours WAS too much, judging by the results.
Yeezy (Usuario registrado)
Starchild (Usuario registrado)
Yeezy – Bodily autonomy is not a "cult". The choice to decide what to put into your own body is a fundamental human right. Respecting people's rights does not "destroy" Oakland.
People are going to do drugs anyway, whether they are criminalized or not. After decades of failed drug prohibition, haven't you learned that yet?
Also, please stop acting like you speak for black and brown people. You do not. It is offensive and racist. Many of them are among the homeless people and drug users who you're trying to persecute.