tired of the disrespect said:

Not Native:  I hear ya.  But your simplistic 85.02 rationale misses the point.  Some of the RV Dwellers are sober and decent human beings.  They want and deserve help.  So, while I agree with you that the last we need to do is enable non-deserving folks, please save the circular legal reasoning of 85.02 for someone else. I am also a lawyer.

---

I could be wrong, but I'm not. The point here is that some of us work really really hard to maintain our biggest investment: our homes. I am all for helping people but NOBODY has the RIGHT to camp in front of our homes, dump their sewage on our streets, vandalize our property, threaten, intimidate, blight, destroy our quality of life. I cannot afford to pay all my bills AND fund all the the repairs of the damage many of these people cause. We should not have to worry about arsonists or "unintentional" fires destroying our homes & threatening our lives & the lives of our families. There are so many reasons why keeping this on streets where it was never meant to be is dangerous & ridiculous. Both for the VD & the law abiding, tax paying residents. These vehicles belong in properly equipped campgrounds/ RV parks. Residential neighborhoods cannot bear the burden. Even discussing the issue is silly. It's akin to debating with a pedophile why they shouldn't touch kids. I have no doubt they can come up with a thousand rationalizations for why they feel it's okay to harm children. Some of them may even seam like intelligent thoughtful people. Some of them probably have hard luck stories about how they were driven to desire little kids. IT"S STILL WRONG! Anything that is illegal is illegal for a reason. Generally because it causes harm to others. Living in these vehicles on residential streets actually causes loads of harm to the community at large as well as to individuals. I wonder how the owner of that SUV that was destroyed when the camper caught fire feels about all this. And that's just one of the smaller examples of the recent damage we have all seen.  I'm not saying that their aren't some nice people living in these campers. I'm not saying I don't want to help them. I am saying that allowing them to continue living on our residential streets is not tolerable, safe or healthy for anyone involved. [side note: if you don't like the comparison to other types of criminals then perhaps it's time to stop engaging in criminal activity.]

tired of the disrespect said:

Not Native:  I hear ya.  But your simplistic 85.02 rationale misses the point.  Some of the RV Dwellers are sober and decent human beings.  They want and deserve help.  So, while I agree with you that the last we need to do is enable non-deserving folks, please save the circular legal reasoning of 85.02 for someone else. I am also a lawyer.

---

OK, take 85.02 out of the argument. As I understand it, you only want to remove those that you think are not sober or not decent human beings from the streets. The rest can continue to live where and how they choose. Am I getting your part right? I think we both can agree we want to help these folks. My belief is that living in an RV on the streets is a bad deal for all involved. I don't think it should be encouraged, much less allowed. I don't see that as help. As simplistic as you feel 85.02 may be, it's what we have. As Rosendahl has said, streets to homes is a carrot. 85.02, OVOs, permit parking are the push. My point is simply, push those who need help, to get help. Those who don't, and wish to continue to live on the street, sober or not, shouldn't be tolerated. I think we all want to help, I just think we have very different ideas about what form that should take. Sorry if that's circular, I obviously, am not a lawyer. Just a guy with a camper in front of his house who doesn't think that's helping anyone.

tired of the disrespect said:

Not native:  No we need to enforce 85.02.  But we need to do it humanely.  Help those that want it and boot those that don't.  I saw your statement that because MR lives in his RV he is by definition, a criminal.  I don't adhere to your strict interpretation of what a criminal is and feel that this status crime needs to be addressed humanely.  That's all.

---

I get it. I am glad to see we are on the same page. For me, it's very black and white. There are laws. Those that break them are criminals (and that has included myself before). If the world worked that way obviously we wouldn't need you lawyers. As I have said numerous times, I think HR is probably a decent guy. I hope he comes around to the help being offered him. You did a very kind thing today. But at the end of the day, they have to go, as humanely as possible. Glad we can all agree on that.