Without commerce everything is dead. Isn't that the argument of globalists?
So why doesn't it apply to local businesses in America?
----
As U.S. cities struggle to address rising homelessness, they increasingly are turning to policies pushed by commercial-property owners that ban people from sitting or sleeping on sidewalks and begging for money.
Business improvement districts—groups of commercial property owners who pool their resources to revitalize their neighborhoods—have worked with some city councils to create and help enforce new laws targeting public conduct in busy commercial districts. In Denver, Berkeley, Calif., and Portland, Ore., for example, BIDs have campaigned to prohibit people from sitting or lying in public rights of way, and even sued to reverse policies that encouraged tent cities and homeless camps.
City lawmakers and officials who manage BIDs defend the arrangements, arguing the ordinances target discourteous or even dangerous conduct that prevents everyone from enjoying shared space. The homeless and their advocates say the policies amount to an effort to push the poor out of the sight of customers and tourists.
“To them this is about creating a shopping-mall environment,” said Paul Boden, executive director of the Western Regional Advocacy Project, a homeless-assistance nonprofit. “If you think about shopping malls, you don’t think about homeless people in the hallways.”
Business improvement districts formed in droves in the U.S. over the past three decades, usually by petition, as cities revitalized their downtowns, hoping to lure back businesses and customers who long ago fled to the suburbs. They typically spend their pooled funds on security, landscaping, cleaning and maintenance.
The growth of BIDs—at a rate of about 3% a year, experts estimate—coincided with a rise in ordinances that advocates say disproportionately affect the homeless. And many of the ordinances have passed in fast-growing cities with rising homeless populations, they said.
A 2015 study of 187 cities by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty found that more than 60 cities had laws banning public camping and about 100 prohibited sitting or lying in public places—increases of 60% and 43%, respectively, since 2011.
Another 2015 survey by researchers at the Policy Advocacy Clinic at University of California, Berkeley, School of Law found California cities with more BIDs had a higher number of ordinances targeting conduct associated with homelessness.
The Obama administration has taken a dim view of the trend. The Justice Department weighed in on the side of homeless people in Boise, Idaho, over sleeping and camping bans in an August 2015 brief filed in federal court. The brief argued that laws prohibiting people from sleeping outside even when shelters are full may violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Pushing these unfortunates--and they're by any means all unfortunates--out of sight of customers and tourist is bad?. One would think ,given the current opinion of elites, would not want these remiders of just how badly they've screwed up the world.
As for the OB lameduckers they seem not to mind protecting one Constitutional amendment as long as it suits their concerns.
wsj.net/public/resources/images
So why doesn't it apply to local businesses in America?
----
As U.S. cities struggle to address rising homelessness, they increasingly are turning to policies pushed by commercial-property owners that ban people from sitting or sleeping on sidewalks and begging for money.
Business improvement districts—groups of commercial property owners who pool their resources to revitalize their neighborhoods—have worked with some city councils to create and help enforce new laws targeting public conduct in busy commercial districts. In Denver, Berkeley, Calif., and Portland, Ore., for example, BIDs have campaigned to prohibit people from sitting or lying in public rights of way, and even sued to reverse policies that encouraged tent cities and homeless camps.
City lawmakers and officials who manage BIDs defend the arrangements, arguing the ordinances target discourteous or even dangerous conduct that prevents everyone from enjoying shared space. The homeless and their advocates say the policies amount to an effort to push the poor out of the sight of customers and tourists.
“To them this is about creating a shopping-mall environment,” said Paul Boden, executive director of the Western Regional Advocacy Project, a homeless-assistance nonprofit. “If you think about shopping malls, you don’t think about homeless people in the hallways.”
Business improvement districts formed in droves in the U.S. over the past three decades, usually by petition, as cities revitalized their downtowns, hoping to lure back businesses and customers who long ago fled to the suburbs. They typically spend their pooled funds on security, landscaping, cleaning and maintenance.
The growth of BIDs—at a rate of about 3% a year, experts estimate—coincided with a rise in ordinances that advocates say disproportionately affect the homeless. And many of the ordinances have passed in fast-growing cities with rising homeless populations, they said.
A 2015 study of 187 cities by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty found that more than 60 cities had laws banning public camping and about 100 prohibited sitting or lying in public places—increases of 60% and 43%, respectively, since 2011.
Another 2015 survey by researchers at the Policy Advocacy Clinic at University of California, Berkeley, School of Law found California cities with more BIDs had a higher number of ordinances targeting conduct associated with homelessness.
The Obama administration has taken a dim view of the trend. The Justice Department weighed in on the side of homeless people in Boise, Idaho, over sleeping and camping bans in an August 2015 brief filed in federal court. The brief argued that laws prohibiting people from sleeping outside even when shelters are full may violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Pushing these unfortunates--and they're by any means all unfortunates--out of sight of customers and tourist is bad?. One would think ,given the current opinion of elites, would not want these remiders of just how badly they've screwed up the world.
As for the OB lameduckers they seem not to mind protecting one Constitutional amendment as long as it suits their concerns.
wsj.net/public/resources/images
No comments:
Post a Comment