Boise is why L.A. can’t legally clear its streets of homeless encampments

Re:Boise is why L.A. can’t legally clear its streets of home... by jMyles on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @04:10PM (#21274932)

> There is a public nuisance aspect to people who are living on the street or in forests on land they don’t own/rent.

I don't think there is a connection to property ownership and the presence of a nuisance caused by people.

So what if people are living on land that they don't own and rent? Who has decreed that land ownership must be the absolute fundamental social norm? What if people are instinctually disinclined to believe or participate in land ownership?

Why do we insist on being the only animal for which a subset charts the entire landmass of the earth into a grid, assigning ownership to every square inch? It's absurd.

People tenting under bridges, on bike trails, in forests, don't bother me. Rich people have stolen far more from my family than poor people have.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Boise is why L.A. can’t legally clear its streets of home... by pandaman on Thursday October 17, 2019 @12:56AM (#21279030)

There are many territorial animals who protect their territory from intruders and humans are by far not the only one. Is your complaint about humans refining the process and erecting a formal framework around this instead of constantly deciding who owns the territory in a fight like other animals? I don't think you'd like it more, to be honest.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Boise is why L.A. can’t legally clear its streets of home... by seanmcdirmid on Wednesday October 16, 2019 @04:39PM (#21275301)

There is a high correlation between squatting and property damage. People simply don’t respect what isn’t theirs, and anyways, the lack of formal infrastructure (plumbing, septic, ...) doesn’t give them a lot of options.

[ Parent | on HN ]