@4: If you click on the link the Stranger provided, it takes you to ACLU-WA. All (both) of the references there are to Washington State’s constitution.
Interestingly, the Stranger left out a couple of important points when it wrote, “A King County Superior Court Judge acknowledged the City's right to clear encampments that obstruct City property or public areas…”
The ACLU-WA post notes,
“The Court found the rules underlying the City’s sweeps policy were unconstitutional because they covered people and property who were not true obstructions. Absent actual hazards, removal requires notice, offer of alternative locations or shelter, and an opportunity to determine whether personal property was taken and how to get it back.”
So, an encampment which poses a “hazard” need not even receive notice prior to a sweep. Given the large number of encampment fires, and eruptions of gunfire from encampments, it would seem the city’s freedom to act will encounter little resistance from this ruling. (I’m still glad Seattle’s REPUBLICAN City Attorney will appeal it, though.)
@7: Once the court’s ruling was revealed to be not quite the magic wand to sweep away sweeps, both the Stranger and rapidly-dwindling amen corner immediately lost interest.
If you'd like more power outages, that can be arranged ;-)
As for sweeps, it sounds like the court ruled that the city can perform sweeps on city property (that includes the streets, sidewalks, and parks) as well as anything that presents a hazard on private property.
And as for Our Unhoused Neighbors: Last night, I was at the Bartell's on Rainier, when a strung out guy with a large aggressive dog came into the store and proceeded to help himself to a twelve pack of beer. When the guard tried to stop him, he allowed his dog to lunge at him, and then left with the beer (and the dog) when security backed down.
Obviously, Bartells needs to have a no-dogs-allowed policy that is enforced at the door (if you have a service dog or "companion animal", you can take advantage of their convenient delivery service), but beyond that, any dog that is used in this way should be allowed to be tazed by the store security and then seized by Animal Control. This incident happened right by the entrance. If anyone had came into the store, they could have been mauled by that crazy dog.
It was fun at CHBP. Enjoyed it, even if it was too hot
@4: If you click on the link the Stranger provided, it takes you to ACLU-WA. All (both) of the references there are to Washington State’s constitution.
Interestingly, the Stranger left out a couple of important points when it wrote, “A King County Superior Court Judge acknowledged the City's right to clear encampments that obstruct City property or public areas…”
The ACLU-WA post notes,
“The Court found the rules underlying the City’s sweeps policy were unconstitutional because they covered people and property who were not true obstructions. Absent actual hazards, removal requires notice, offer of alternative locations or shelter, and an opportunity to determine whether personal property was taken and how to get it back.”
So, an encampment which poses a “hazard” need not even receive notice prior to a sweep. Given the large number of encampment fires, and eruptions of gunfire from encampments, it would seem the city’s freedom to act will encounter little resistance from this ruling. (I’m still glad Seattle’s REPUBLICAN City Attorney will appeal it, though.)
The comments doing that weird thing they sometimes do where you have to post to get new ones to load?
Oh, I guess not! Just a slow day. Thought there was kinda a lot of red meat here, go figure.
@7: Once the court’s ruling was revealed to be not quite the magic wand to sweep away sweeps, both the Stranger and rapidly-dwindling amen corner immediately lost interest.
This is the best breakup song ever:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lLeCB7Kn-VE
If you'd like more power outages, that can be arranged ;-)
As for sweeps, it sounds like the court ruled that the city can perform sweeps on city property (that includes the streets, sidewalks, and parks) as well as anything that presents a hazard on private property.
And as for Our Unhoused Neighbors: Last night, I was at the Bartell's on Rainier, when a strung out guy with a large aggressive dog came into the store and proceeded to help himself to a twelve pack of beer. When the guard tried to stop him, he allowed his dog to lunge at him, and then left with the beer (and the dog) when security backed down.
Obviously, Bartells needs to have a no-dogs-allowed policy that is enforced at the door (if you have a service dog or "companion animal", you can take advantage of their convenient delivery service), but beyond that, any dog that is used in this way should be allowed to be tazed by the store security and then seized by Animal Control. This incident happened right by the entrance. If anyone had came into the store, they could have been mauled by that crazy dog.
Must you think of everything in terms of stereotypes, Raindrop dear? It's really quite tedious.