Palo Alto Homeless Update - High Paid Bureaucracy Plans to Ban Vehicle Dwelling
me
“I see this as a high paid bureaucracy placing their occupationalism
above human rights”
see the original article and more comments at
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=21773
Ban on car dwelling heads to City Council
See also
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/story.php?story_id=13390
"It’s long past time to ban ‘vehicle dwelling’" by Jay Thorwaldson,
Editor of the Palo Alto Weekly, largely supported by real estate ads.
--------
Rebuttal To Jay Thorwaldson “It’s long past time to ban ‘vehicle
dwelling’”
July 11, 2011
By Tony Ciampi
reposted to the Usenet with authors’ permission
Just as Hearst fomented lies to the American people in order to garner
support for a war with Spain and as journalists essentially published
articles written by government staff in support of the war with Iraq,
so too does the Palo Alto Weekly foment baseless arguments fanning the
flames of hate and prejudices in order to seek an Unconstitutional
ordinance taking away the right of some citizens to freely enjoy the
public roads as all other citizens do.
Mr. Thorwaldson claims that he is not advocating driving specific
residents out of Palo Alto, yet what Mr. Thorwaldson is asking the
City to do, would do just that. A person, whether by choice or other
circumstance, (lost job due to the economy), finds him or herself
without a cabin that has a foundation, yet he or she has a vehicle to
sleep in. Should he or she sleep on the sidewalk, or should he or she
sleep in his or her vehicle?
The person has a vehicle. It is 50 degrees in January and it is
raining. The person has a choice, he or she can sleep in his or her
vehicle or sleep outside exposed to the elements. Mr. Thorwaldson and
those who support his position want to pass an ordinance that would
force people to sleep out in the elements rather in their vehicles.
Mr. Thorwaldson’s ordinance would force people out into the cold and
rain or risk having the authorities seize their vehicles and property
should they seek refuge inside their vehicles.
The result of Mr. Thorwaldson’s ordinance would result in the
Unconstitutional seizure of citizens’ vehicles simply because they
lack the financial resources to avoid doing so. Mr. Thorwaldson wants
to outlaw citizens because they are poor.
Mr. Thorwaldson claims that the rational for outlawing the existence
some residents is that it is a quality of life issue. Others also
argue that it is a health and safety issue. That is an interesting
position, for the only difference in many of the vehicles that Mr.
Thorwaldson and those like him are referring to and Abraham Lincoln’s
log cabin is that the vehicles, (cabins), that Mr. Thorwaldson wants
to outlaw have wheels whereas Lincoln’s cabin did not. In fact, many
of the vehicles that Mr. Thorwaldson refers to have many more
amenities than Lincoln’s log cabin.
Is sleeping on the ground out in the rain a better quality of life
than sleeping warm and dry in one’s mobile cabin? Mr. Thorwaldson is
correct in that the issue is about quality of life, the ordinance that
Mr. Thorwaldson would like to see enacted would lower the quality of
life and actually have a greater likely hood of causing health
problems by forcing residents out of their abodes and into the
elements.
Quality of life isn’t just about material possessions, quality of life
also has to do with a person’s character and integrity and whether or
not that person’s character possesses compassion and understanding
coupled with wisdom and logic. Anyone who would rather force fellow
human beings out into the elements rather than allow them to take
refuge in their own abode has diminished their own quality of life.
Anyone who would rather force fellow human beings out of their own
abode into abodes paid for with money out of your wallet, (socialism),
lacks economic wisdom and logic. Why spend money on housing people in
abodes when it is unnecessary to do so.
In actuality, Mr. Thorwaldson’s proposed ordinance would force
citizens to pay for the housing of other citizens through the criminal
justice industry, (jail), or the poverty industry, (shelter), simply
because he doesn’t want to look at the citizens that his proposed
ordinance would effect.
Mr. Thorwaldson’s ordinance has everything to do with physical
appearance and very little to do with content of character, yet if Mr.
Thorwaldson’s ordinance targeted people because of the color of their
skin, black, or people’s religious nationality, Jewish, I have to
believe that Mr. Thorwaldson would be summarily rebuked by the
community.
Any person who gives money to help economically challenged people in
other nations, “Whole Foods’ Feed 100 Program” yet turns around and
oppresses economically challenged people in their own community
contradicts the integrity of their value to be compassionate to their
fellow human being.
If Lincoln were alive today and Mr. Thorwaldson and those like him
were to have their way, they would outlaw the existence of one of
America’s greatest Presidents. Yet perhaps Mr. Thorwaldson and those
who view life from the same perspective would want to outlaw the 16th
President of the United States of America just as the Southern
Confederacy would have done, for Mr. Thorwaldson’s ordinance isn’t
about judging people’s character but it is about judging and
penalizing people based upon their physical appearance.
When Mr. Thorwaldson brings up the fact that the City has been looking
at the issue of people sleeping in their vehicles as far back as two
decades, Mr. Thorwaldson essentially acknowledges that the issue is
not a problem, for if it truly were a problem about health and safety
the City would have taken action a long time ago. There are already
laws against disturbing the peace and littering and those laws are
enforced upon all citizens whether they happen to be sleeping in a
small metal box or a large wooden one.
In the end it is quite clear that the City cannot pass an ordinance
against sitting in one’s vehicle on a public street, because then all
citizens would be in violation of the ordinance.
The City cannot pass an ordinance about what kinds of belongings
people can place in their vehicles, for again, all citizens would be
in violation of the ordinance for there is nothing inside the vehicles
of those who sleep in them that is not common to what all citizens
bring home from various stores and while going camping or skiing or
vacationing themselves.
At the core of any ordinance that the City would enact would be
whether or not a person closed his or her eyes. A citizen can sit in
his/her car at 3:00 in morning or 3:00 in the afternoon, but as soon
as that citizen closes his or her eyes, that citizen would be in
violation of any proposed “vehicle-sleeping” ordinance. Since it is
not unlawful to park one’s vehicle on the public street and sit in
one’s vehicle on a public street, the ordinance would actually
prohibit sleeping.
Mr. Thorwaldson claims that he doesn’t intend to drive economically
challenged residents out of Palo Alto, yet it is quite clear what his
proposed ordinance would accomplish should it ever be enacted, it
would deny people sleep and then take away their vehicles and property
for attempting to do so simply because they sleep in a mobile dwelling
as apposed to a dwelling that has a fixed foundation.
Just as Prop 8 denied equal protection of the law to a small minority
of California Citizens according to Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn
Walker, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry
Brown, any municipality that would pass an ordinance that would deny
people sleep under the threat of having their property seized for
doing so is a violation of their right to equal protection of the law
and blatantly contrary to the rights secured to all citizens by the
United States and California Constitutions.
On its face Mr. Thorwaldson’s ordinance would deny American Citizens
freedom. Mr. Thorwaldson wants to deny some American Citizens the
freedom to exist in society simply because they do not possess the
financial resources and material possessions that would be required to
avoid violating Mr. Thorwaldson’s ordinance.
“Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates
the right of an individual.”
Thomas Jefferson
Fortunately the majority of Americans do not believe as Mr.
Thorwaldson does. Unfortunately, a small minority of Americans enacts
the laws, which affect all Americans.
“Injustice fights with two weapons, force and fraud.. A common form
of injustice is chicanery, that is, an over-subtle, in fact a
fraudulent construction of the law.”
Cicero – On Moral Duties
If it were not for their parents, or some kind of support system,
20,000,000 adults between that ages of 18 to 34 would be living in
their cars due to the current economic recession.
Editorial: It’s long past time to ban ‘vehicle dwelling’
Palo Alto needs to separate, prioritize issues to protect
neighborhoods from intrusions, old vans and clutter, or worse
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/story.php?story_id=13390
Email Comments:
August 10, 2010
To the Honorable City Council of Palo Alto, City Manager Jim Keene and
City Attorney Gary Baum,
My vehicle, license plate “1lmr274,“ has been tagged with another tow
warning. I do not have a problem with the placing of the 72 hour
notice for violating Municipal Code 10.36.30, however the warning also
states that I am violating California Vehicle Codes 22523(a) and
22523(b) which means that my vehicle is subject to immediate tow
without any further warning. As I have previously informed you, my
vehicle is not abandoned.
Since my vehicle is not abandoned, your seizure of my vehicle would be
a violation of the law and Constitution. Please inform the Police
Department to not cite me for violating California Vehicle Codes
22523(a) and 22523(b). Officer “03840″ informed me that my vehicle
was reported as being abandoned. Whoever made the report with the
police department made a false report.
I will be in the Police Department tomorrow or the next day seeking a
copy of the report in order to find out who made the false police
report.
Should the police department cite me in the future for violating
California Vehicle Codes 22523(a) and 22523(b) I will consider it not
just an Unconstitutional threat to seize my vehicle, but the actual
seizure of my vehicle since I would not be able to leave my vehicle
unattended for five minutes without the possibility of the police
department seizing it and as such I would essentially be confined to
to my vehicle indefinitely in order to ensure that the police
department would not impound my vehicle.
Tony Ciampi
P.O. Box 1681
Palo Alto, Ca 94302
650-468-3561
Response to alleged phone call to PA police by editor Jay Thorwaldson
Editor Palo Alto Weekly
August 10, 2010
Hi all –
FYI, I did not call in any parked vehicle. I don’t even know where it
was parked. I don’t mind the (somewhat immature) name calling, but for
someone who professes to value the truth it would be nice if more of
it were showing in the posts, not surmises/beliefs/speculations.
Best regards,
-jay
Jay Thorwaldson
Editor
Palo Alto Weekly
August 11, 2010 (Aram James)
I think you can skip Judge Judy– the court of pubic opinion already
has Jay’s number. Remember his unsupported attacks on those in the
community who opposed Tasers? As my dad often said about folks like
Jay …”some people prefer not to be disturbed by the facts.” Jay
suffers from a serious case of this syndrome.
Best regards,
Aram
Originally Published on: Aug 10, 2010 @ 12:06
This entry was posted on July 11, 2011 at 12:00 am and is filed under
Community Posts,
One Response to “ Rebuttal To Jay Thorwaldson “It’s long past time to
ban ‘vehicle dwelling’” ”
From: a palo alto resident on July 14, 2011 at 1:41 pm
You should notice in the Palo Alto Weekly article that Philip Dah is
made to look “compassionate” about homeless vehicle dwellers – yet in
all his years as operational director of the Homeless Asylum on Encina
Street he has never come out against the “No Overnight Parking” signs
in front of the building. He has never opened up the common facilities
after 4pm which could have been used by a lot of homeless people, and
most if not all monetary donations to the so-called Opportunity Center
go into salaries, not to the poor and oppressed.
George Plimpton
>
> “I see this as a high paid bureaucracy placing their occupationalism
> above human rights”
It isn't.
David Hatunen
I see in the article that Palo alto is simply following the example of
other nearby cities. I suspect that the ban in adjacent cities has caused
all of their car-dwellers to move to Palo Alto.
I'm a retired City of Palo Alto employee, and I'm having trouble
visualizing where all the mini-mobile homes are parking. Municipal anti-
loitering laws were long ago found unconstitutional so I wonder about
these sorts of laws.
According to the article, it would seem enforcement will be rather
benign, even helpful, and the city has a great deal of sympathy and
empathy for the problems of these homeless people.
--
Dave Hatunen, Tucson, Baja Arizona, out where the cacti grow
DCI
Excellent points!
DCI
DCI
The role of the municaplity for of government is to assure community
services, the safety and welfare of the citizens of the community. It
is not the role to build an empire of objectivity as in zero tolerance
in the application of restrictive codes.
DCI
David Hatunen
I spent some fourteen years working for the Public Works Engineering
department and generally found everyone at city hall to be thoughtful and
considerate when working with the public. In fact, forebearing, which
wasn't always easy given the number of Palo Altoans who have a sense of
self-importance.
Part of my own job included reviewing development permit applications for
flood zone impacts, and telling a billionaire that because he's in a
flood zone he's going to have to jack up his house if he wants to add a
wing to his house can be a bit of heavy-going.
me
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=21843
and an article this morning on the front page of the Palo Alto Daily
Post (not online)