Proposed CA Law Would Grant Homeless 'Right' to Urinate on Sidewalks


#1

Proposed CA Law Would Grant Homeless ‘Right’ to Urinate on Sidewalks
by Tony Lee


2012/12/11

A California lawmaker has proposed a “Homeless Persons’ Bill of Rights” that would grant homeless people the right to urinate on sidewalks—which is described as a life sustaining activity—panhandle, and refuse the offer of a homeless shelter.

… The measure would also protect:

– Sleeping in public spaces such as sidewalks and parks

– 24/7 access to bathrooms, showers, water and clean syringes

– Car camping on city streets without restrictions

– “Life sustaining activities” such as urinating and collecting recycling trash

– Welfare cash payments

[/quote]
Unless some CA D legislators have an outbreak of sanity or Gov. Brown vetoes it (assuming it passes), this will be CA law come next year. So scratch SF, Oakland, Hollywood and LA from your list of places to visit, unless stepping over druggies, alkies, should-be mental patients and their urine puddles and feces piles is your ideal tourist activity.


#2

Sounds to me like they’re getting ready for an awful lot of homeless people.

But if there’s a ‘right’ to 24/7 access to bathrooms, then why a need for a ‘right’ to pee on the sidewalk?

And isn’t that discriminating against people with homes?


#3

Well UC is now giving out Scholarships to ILLEGALS, yes that is how you qualify.

Go to school and the taxpayers dime and pizz on the sidewalks, ‘how stylish’


#4

So…Christians have no “Right” to set up a Nativity scene at Christmas time on “Public Property” but the Hobo’s have a “Right” to piss on Public Property.

Tell me again how unreasonably “Extremist” and “Stupid” I am when I attribute to Liberals a purely and intentionally evil agenda?


#5

One more reason why;

THE GREAT CALIFORNIA EXODUS:

A Closer Look

Tom Gray & Robert Scardamalia

Executive Summary

For decades after World War II, California was a destination for Americans in search of a better life. In many people’s minds, it was the state with more jobs, more space, more sunlight, and more opportunity. They voted with their feet, and California grew spectacularly (its population increased by 137 percent between 1960 and 2010). However, this golden age of migration into the state is over. For the past two decades, California has been sending more people to other American states than it receives from them. Since 1990, the state has lost nearly 3.4 million residents through this migration.

Civic Report 71 | The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look


#6

CA Gubernators since 1990:

  • Pete Wilson, miniature RINO;

  • Gray Davis, spendthrift taxaholic D

  • Arnold Schwarzenegger, spendthrift taxaholic loud-mouthed RINO

  • Jerry Brown, nutjob spendthrift taxaholic D


#7

How ironic that this comes just when SF is deciding against public nudity. lol

A (maybe) point of interest. Came up when I brought this up to someone who owns a business in S. Carolina.
If you own a business in S.C., no matter its nature, if you refuse anyone access to your bathroom, (which, by law, you must have), the health dept. WILL shut you down, AND fine you out the whazoo. Yes, even if its marked, “For Emplyees Only.”

So, maybe S.C. should enact this ‘public peeing’ law in an attempt to regain some private property rights?


#8

The legislator proposing this law is a D from SF. I’m guessing he does not approve of SF’s new ordinance and this is in part an end run around it. SF stuporvisors are pedictably liberal, for the most part, but they seee the connection between stuff like the flouting nudity or bums defecating in gutters and business doorways and tourist and business tax revenues. That D legislator lacks even that minimal intelligence.


#9

A partial reason for CA’s influx of people moving there during the 60’s is because of Haight-Ashbury and other hippie/radical areas attracting young freakazoids. They now have grey hair and a hammer and sickle to replace the American flag.

Now, my question–quite logical actually–is, does this new law provide for a homeless person needing to go “number two”??? :embarrese Sorry, just following this idea to it’s repulsive, but logical end.