Considering a least one city was willing to trick homeless people onto a bus and then dump them in another city, that does seem to be the prevailing attitude.
That was real?!
Nearly every city in America has done this at one time or another.
That could be. Austin, TX is one of my favorite California towns, right after Vancouver, BC.
Out of curiosity, what do you think the city should be doing instead in order to discourage the homeless from camping in prohibited areas?
Let me rephrase the question. What should the city do that doesn't cost them any more money than they already spend maintaining the public space to discourage encampments?
I honestly don't know, but I don't think I need to propose a counter-solution to making these people lives worse.
I don't know what notice was given to these people, nor what laws and regulations are in place for the use of that location, however is it wrong of me to suggest that if you don't want your property destroyed you shouldn't keep it where it will be destroyed?
I would say it is wrong to destroy people's property. Why couldn't they disassemble the tents and move them? I'm sad that people would take such violent action against people who clearly aren't having the best life at the moment anyway.
