This is a good program for sure, but my question goes back to why there are no police patrols in the Pearl. If the City spent the money adequately policing the Pearl, this might not be necessary. And where are those bicycle patrols that were allegedly assigned here? Has anybody seen them? I sure haven’t.
Here we have an example of using local resources to **manage** a current urban problem rather than everyone going off and preaching hostility towards annoying but vulnerable populations in our midst.
You mean using tax-payer dollars to cover the behavior of criminals, scofflaws and addicts.
While I’m all for helping small businesses that are suffering the fallout of our lack of political will to fund the police, jail lawbreakers, and to not excuse the perpetrators as victims, there’s a reason taxpayers are “hostile” towards the squatters in our midst and the political activists and politicians who have consistently enabled them since Charlie Hales first declared a “Homeless Emergency” 10 years ago.
I think the only vulnerable populations here at this point are businesses and tax paying residents. The braindead mayor and district/county representative seem to have decided drug addicted squatters who pay for their drugs by preying on neighborhoods are the only people that must be shielded and enabled at all costs - I guess you must agree with this misguided approach even though it flies in the face of all logic.
Sorry, coming from a completely different ethic, in which the term "vulnerable population" has a specific meaning. I'm just now thinking how easy it is for societies to create vulnerable populations by choosing some group with no money or power to blame for everything. (Blaming politicians doesn't make them vulnerable; that's a different matter.)
This is a good program for sure, but my question goes back to why there are no police patrols in the Pearl. If the City spent the money adequately policing the Pearl, this might not be necessary. And where are those bicycle patrols that were allegedly assigned here? Has anybody seen them? I sure haven’t.
Here we have an example of using local resources to **manage** a current urban problem rather than everyone going off and preaching hostility towards annoying but vulnerable populations in our midst.
You mean using tax-payer dollars to cover the behavior of criminals, scofflaws and addicts.
While I’m all for helping small businesses that are suffering the fallout of our lack of political will to fund the police, jail lawbreakers, and to not excuse the perpetrators as victims, there’s a reason taxpayers are “hostile” towards the squatters in our midst and the political activists and politicians who have consistently enabled them since Charlie Hales first declared a “Homeless Emergency” 10 years ago.
Enjoy all hostility equally ...
I think the only vulnerable populations here at this point are businesses and tax paying residents. The braindead mayor and district/county representative seem to have decided drug addicted squatters who pay for their drugs by preying on neighborhoods are the only people that must be shielded and enabled at all costs - I guess you must agree with this misguided approach even though it flies in the face of all logic.
Sorry, coming from a completely different ethic, in which the term "vulnerable population" has a specific meaning. I'm just now thinking how easy it is for societies to create vulnerable populations by choosing some group with no money or power to blame for everything. (Blaming politicians doesn't make them vulnerable; that's a different matter.)