Posted on 12/07/2019 6:13:47 PM PST by upchuck
Portland, Oregon, like many cities on the left coast, is struggling with a growing homelessness crisis. But what can they do about it? One idea that’s now being floated is to change the building codes so that all new structures (including private property, not just government buildings) include spaces for people to “rest” and “feel welcome and safe.” This understandably has prospective property owners concerned, since the wording is all quite vague and suggests that they will be forced to allow the homeless to camp in and around their buildings. (KATU News)
The obvious questions are already being raised. What specifically does “rest” mean in this context? Does that mean that new buildings will have to include spaces for the “unhoused” (their word) where they will be “protected from the weather?” That’s basically just an invitation for people to come trespass and stay there.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
The Left destroys averthing and everyone they touch.
When are the taxpayers and property owners going to wake up to shit storm they have brought upon themselves by voting for the most radical “progressives” in the DemoRAT party? Elections have consequences, and not all Good.
Property belongs to he who claims it and can defend his claim.
Maybe not next, but they'll get there pretty quickly.
Plank #1 of the Communist Manifesto: Abolition of private property rights.
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/TenPlanks.html
“Poison sumac is a beautiful, relaxing plant...”
The Portland City Council must have had a viewing of “Dr. Zhivago” and they took the wrong lessons from the story.
Why not just make all public offices and facilities available for people who need some place to rest, every night, including the Mayor’s office. Most politicians etc. aren’t working in them at night. Just have a rule that they have to leave before the offices open in the morning. This should work for DC too. Just open all the Capitol offices at night.
Can’t really ‘blame’ the city.
I presume enough people have moaned and groaned over the condition of downtown areas that are overrun by the ‘homeless’.
So, the obvious solution is to distribute the ‘wealth’ or at least make the areas outside of downtown just as Schiffy as the downtown.
The opposite of distributing the wealth.
The test case should be to open the Mayors residence (since it is ‘publicly’ owned) to the public as well as the courthouse and make the Judges chambers particularly vulnerable seeing as how they more than likely have to sign off on this madness AND, make sure the homeless get to share the City Council dining room, at no cost.
Follow the Starbucks plan and you too can bankrupt yourself.
“Provide opportunities to rest and be welcome.”
That is so damn vague it will probably lead to complaints by the city that property owners are operating unlicensed campgrounds or hotels. Then what?
How about just cutting to the chase and requiring new buildings provide at least one room for a non-family resident rent free. Food to be served at least 3 times a day and only from an approved menu.
I like the unwashed to spread it.
The “transcendancy” of progressivism lands us back to Bolshevik Russia. Actually the hamlet with Julie Christie seems like it was in Ukraine IIRC.
The setting and plot of that movie is very depressing. Like the intellectual caliber of most of our voting population.
This might be unconstitutional for several reasons. In any event, it’s an outrage that it’s even being considered by officials. If this isn’t a “taking”, I don’t know what is.
 Pee-Tree |
 Tinkle-Tree |
For approaches to other, related rest area activities, see San Francisco's innovative rest area solution.
Plank #1 of the Communist Manifesto: Abolition of private property rights.
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/TenPlanks.html
No, this is actually worse. It’s “yours”, except you can’t use your property-but you’ll pay taxes on it and you will be fined if you don’t keep it in order.
That’s all I’ve got, I’m busy writing up some patents for needleproof playwear for children.
45 years ago,city of Oakland calif put a ballot to a vote for every homeowner has to offer homeless any empty bedrooms...Lucky it failed,but libs always have these ideas....
Get the f off my property or something bad, MAY, happen mookabooker
The chances of unintended consequences are endless with this terrible idea from Marxists who have to force their ideas on people by mandate or law because on their own, the ideas wouldn't be accepted by the voters voluntarily.
This is basically "redistributing the homeless" to private property throughout the city.
Once they're on "your" property, the property owners won't be able to get them to leave.
This is going to be a nightmare if it goes through.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.