Homeless becoming a “Class”, thanks to the Vehicle Dwelling Ban

Protected species
Protected species

Since the cities have copied each other in this tragic pursuit of discrimination against the impoverished, the result is becoming clear that we homeless have now become a “class” of persons.

This means politically that we can now petition government for “recognition as a “class” of people, giving us a special status, just like Blacks, Gays, Disabled, Veterans, and any other “class” of people.

That will give us special rights inherent to our group and  Police will then have to stop profiling us. Government can then be pressured to actually provide funding for very affordable housing.

When I view the new correctional facility over in Stockton, I see the roof covered with thousand dollar bills, because California spent $900,000,000.00 on this facility for minor offenders. For that amount, the state could have constructed  100,000 Basalt domes costing about $9,000 each , fully liveable with plumbing and electrical.

That would get 100,000 homeless off the streets resulting in less crimes, a boost in the economy because construction jobs would result and many of these people would now get jobs because they have a permanent residence, and regained their self esteem.

Instead, the State has incarcerated citizens and make them into “wards of the State” in some cases, forever dependent upon government social programs which only exacerbates the problem, never solving anything. Palo Alto should be working to find solutions to the homeless problem, instead the city council members choose to get on the same merry-go-round as the surrounding cities (with the exception of Menlo Park) and pass some discriminatory ordinance preventing the poor from existing within the city limits.

Homeless Van belonging to retired school teacher
Homeless Van belonging to retired school teacher

The narrow minded few that want a Vehicle Dwelling Ban may, in fact, win this time around. They now have the big guns aimed toward Cubberly, which was a threat to no one, demanding that public showers be turned off, Police patrols increase, and the  library be patrolled to make it unfriendly to the homeless.

The policy of Palo Alto seems to be headed in a dangerous direction, to create some “privileged city status” infringing the rights of some while promoting the rights of others. This is completely opposite of what America is supposed to stand for. What is happening to “equal rights”, “justice for all”, “constitutional rights’, and” let freedom ring”?

Have we become a nation of hypocrites, bent upon our own selfish concerns at the cost of everyone else’s human rights? Some solutions to the homeless problem already exist, but politics becomes the stumbling block to actually carry these solutions to completion. Palo

Alto, as with many cities, is run by a who knows who club of well to do aristocrats vying to remain in power as long as possible, to thwart any real changes to both city policy and economic freedom, as long as those remain in power.

This issue, the Vehicle Habitation Ban, may actually be a turning point in Palo Alto, for it will allow the savvy citizens to really see which city council members are true blooded Americans, and which ones don’t deserve that title.

Palo Alto City Mayor Engages in a “Clear and present danger”

Our First Amendment Right has and will be the Chief Cornerstone of our democracy.  Nothing is of greater importance then in defending this right.  Historically, the courts have engaged in bitter battles in defining and shaping appropriate First Amendment speech.

Many have concluded that even the most antisocial, overt, threatening gestures are protected under the First Amendment.  However, when United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s rendered his opinion in the how famous case of Gitlow vs. New York 1925, he stated,  First Amendment freedoms are lost when speech poses an emanate threat of “clear and present danger” to our safety.

Such is the case with the recent actions of Palo Alto City Mayor Sid Espinoza who continues to abridge our freedom of speech by imposing prior restraints at directing criticism at government officials.

Sid Espinoza offers no sound legal opinion other than stating it conflicts with established city protocol and relies solely on the advice of city attorney Donald Larkin.  Both refuse to return phone calls or respond to email requests.

The United States Constitution combined with the California Constitution trumps any city protocol imposed and or prior restraints without “Due process” of law.   City attorney Donald Larkin and Mayor Sid Espinoza have both failed to address the following fundamental right of every citizen as follows.

“Congress shall make no [city] law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Their joints actions to impose and abridge conditions of Free Speech during oral communications can only be best described as “obscene” and represents a “clear and present danger” to the overthrowing of  everyone’s right, to the Freedom of Speech.

Editors notes:

Oral communications during city council meetings is the time which any citizen, foreign and domestic can in fact address grievances.  What Mayor Sid Espinoza vehement objects to, is the directing of criticism to a specific government employee.  He claims, it’s unconstitutionally permissible and offers no legal basis.