post NR4KV9 in STRONG SUPPORT-of/YES-ON {California bill AB-718: ‘prohibit [government] from prohibiting or otherwise [penalizing], or removing or impounding a motor vehicle [for], ..sleeping or resting in a lawfully parked motor vehicle.’}

Aug 012015

Posted by DestinyArchitect on UTC 2015.08.01Sat at 01:35 bill (law) NR5LRI, for/of California NR5LRL, housing via motor vehicle NR5KZ5, human homelessness, human housing NRGI7U, motor vehicle parking NR5LBI, voting :NOL1LW Add comments

^NR4KV9 “intro & overall”

^NR4L94 “The “terms of use” of {this post & its comments, including the privacy & confidentiality of it plus all knowledge obtained from it} is JotHere’s standard Terms of Use except:”
1. ^NRGVDI: none; please constructively share this post notably by constructively linking to its points.
^NR608I “post image”

comic picture of ‘vehicle living’ 🙂 Still, despite the actual fun (& life) here, plus actual real utility (for instance, if laws allowed it, with housing-via-vehicle, many could cut commuting-to-work from 5 roundtrips per week down to 1!), even normal motorhomes are not really usable for housing in of California, including because quietly 3 out of 4 cities have outlawed where a person is allowed to SLEEP!
^NR4M7T “post name history in reverse start-order”
1. ^NR4OAI now originally to next:
  
  ‘post NR4KV9 in STRONG SUPPORT-of/YES-ON {California bill AB-718: ‘prohibit [government] from prohibiting or otherwise [penalizing], or removing or impounding a motor vehicle [for], ..sleeping or resting in a lawfully parked motor vehicle.’}’
2. ^NR4OED “per post name, add post to categories”
  1. ^NR5MAI ‘bill (law) NR5LRI’
  2. ^NR4PJ2 ‘California=CA N1566C’ -no, replace with:
    1. ^NR5M1S ‘for/of California NR5LRL’
  3. ^NR4PM7 ‘motor vehicle NR4PL1’ –no, replace with:
    1. ^NR5M3I ‘housing via motor vehicle NR5KZ5’
    2. ^NR5M8O ‘motor vehicle parking NR5LBI’
  4. ^NR4PIN ‘voting NOL1LW’ -not quite as here immediately needs contacting state senators
^NR6H4P In this my post on California bill AB-718 (BillTrack50 entry), as well as strongly supporting this bill, I systematically & comprehensively identify all the issues I know the bill raises plus show how every rebuttal I’ve heard against it does not seem to hold water, and the post is written by me, a California combat vet with years of experience in all the housing types under consideration.
1. ^NR6J9G So even if it’s not in time for the Senate’s vote scheduled today[ 2015.07.08], this post could be useful in selling people on the matter including for future votes plus for residents needlessly upset or confused by {the ability to sleep from one’s lawfully parked vehicle} becoming law.
^NR4Q1C I very strongly support this bill, so say ‘vote YES’, and encourage others to speak up in support of it as well.
1. ^NR4Q3J Why support this bill?
  1. ^NR4Q42 Unfortunately the bill’s passage, and seemingly effective enactment, ‘prospects are unclear’ (quoting & well-explained-in where I first heard of it) and “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings”, as:
    1. ^NRGISW: positive signs:
      1. ^NRGJJC: ‘the bill’s status’:
        
        ^NRGIXX: from the bill’s votes, delightfully it’s passed 4 of I think the ~5 steps for a California bill to become law (the last step I’m guessing remaining is the governor doesn’t veto it), and while the bill has always passed by a very strong majority, for the last 2 votes that ratio has been its lowest of 4:1 (so still not very low).
    2. ^NRGIQK: negative signs: quoting the overall opposition from where I first heard of it:
      1. ^NR5CDJ ‘.. Many cities in California also oppose the bill ’ and gives the full list. Specifically 23 of ‘482 municipalities’ (mostly cities). I do not know how may cities are in favor of the bill.
      2. ^NR5CD4 And ‘It isn’t the first time California has considered a state law to legalize sleeping in cars. In 2013, .. Homeless Bill of Rights. .. [but] The idea didn’t pass. Cities pushed back, saying it would have been too expensive. And some city leaders offered another thought – the state was proposing a law that overrode local views. City leaders in Orange County are saying the same thing about the narrower proposal, AB718.’
  2. ^NREY6I: net overall significant good: notably almost certainly significant people will helped by this law, including potentially everyone:
    1. ^NR5TO7 While, even though if this bill is passed, I estimate about 99% of people would not change where they sleep, at least not immediately & significantly (so likely how these bad laws got slipped in in the first place) still significant people would be helped…
    2. ^NR4R0W most significantly, people benefiting from their now being able to legally sleep & rest from a vehicle, as
      1. ^NR5BJ9 a big legal change: ‘About three out of four cities statewide have a law against sleeping in vehicles,’ including ‘Many cities in Orange County’ where I grew up & live now, quoting NR4PMT; this bill would rid all that.
      2. ^NREZCW: –especially in California as:
        
        ^NREZNS: California has likely the 2nd best weather in the nation for resting, sleeping in, & living from a parked vehicle (followed by only Hawaii, but Hawaii is impractical for most people as noted next).
        
        ^NRFVBU: As far as standard house prices (both listing & sales), California is the 3rd most expensive state in the US, followed by only states which are both impractical for most people due to their limited size and/or resources (Hawaii and District of Columbia); as of 2015.Q2, the average home listing & sale are $858,829 & $398,500 respectively –reports https://web.archive.org/web/20150623132402/http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/
      3. ^NRGONI: in contrast to standard housing, a car usable for sleeping plus minimal housing
        
        ^NRFWG7: can be bought for ~1/35th of standard California housing: ~$11,294 averaging:
        
        ^NRFW1H: the average used car price is $18,088 as of 2015Q1 per Edmonds, and
        
        ^NRFWE8: in my experience, as recent just last year 2014, a quality car suitable for sleeping + minimal living, as 14-year old Subaru wagon, can be had for a mere $4500 and that’s including registration fees + basic repairs.
        
        ^NRGORA: uses about 1/10 the ongoing resources (considering land area, electricity+gas vs. gasoline, repairs, and water)
        
        ^NRGOUG: -a guestimate with more accurate calculations to be later done, but likely in the ballpark.
        
        ^NRGILX: aside: due to this section’s topic, now add this post to category ‘human housing NRGI7U’
      4. ^NRFY2T: people groups helped from roughly most significant:
        
        ^NR4QZA many if not most homeless (a group which everyone is aware of & sees from time-to-time)
        
        ^NREY0N: especially in California as, quoting NREYF4, both:
        
        ^NREZ12: ‘California [has] 113,952 homeless people, or 20% of the nation’s overall homeless population, as of January 2014. .. California also had the largest number of homeless families, unaccompanied homeless youth, and homeless veterans.’
        
        ^NREZ1N: ‘While most homeless people in the U.S. lived in emergency shelters or transitional housing in 2013, most homeless people in California were unsheltered. For example, in Los Angeles only 22% of homeless people had a bed in a shelter in 2013.’ –so, with this law, they could now could legally & much-more-affordably shelter themselves in motor vehicles,
        
        ^NRFYAF: including a major group of standard-home-less by choice, the rent-free RVers & car-livers both full- & part-time, who now will be relieved from the harassment against their lifestyle, legal- so also typically social-.
        
        ^NRGIJX: aside: due to section topic, now add post to category ‘human homelessness NRGI7W’
        
        ^NRFYRR: not homeless but would use-some or switch-to vehicle housing if legal:
        
        ^NREYM3: any driver needing a nap or other rest: ‘If a driver is fatigued, it is in the interest of public safety that he or she park and rest rather than continuing to drive. In cities that ban sleeping in cars[–74%–] , this would be prohibited’ w/o this law –quoting NREYTP.
        
        ^NRFYVN: anyone traveling, or taking trip too far to drive home back for the night (for for a lunch-time nap) but finding hotels or staying-with-relatives or going w/o sleep too much cost or/and trouble.
        
        ^NR4QZJ small (as ~1%) but still significant numbers in standard homes (so not “homeless”) but not happy there so would live at least sometime from a vehicle (as the rent-free RVers & car-livers do) if it was legal
        
        ^NRFYIS: who are not happy in standard housing because 1 or more:
        
        ^NRFYMI: can’t afford standard housing, including:
        
        ^NREY78: ‘California has one of the nation’s highest rates of “poor renters,” or people that spend more than 50% of their income on rent.’ quoting NREYF4, and probably a good deal because of California’s top housing costs
        
        ^NRFYQ8: don’t like the resource waste of traditional housing,
      5. ^NR5U3U and the people who do or would-then sleep in a car are helped substantially
    3. ^NR5UAJ those (abusers) trying to prohibit vehicle sleeping: they “lose” from no longer getting what they’ve wrongly come to expect: undeserved little {money & ego boosts} at notable cost to others especially the disadvantaged, so a “loss” actually good for everyone…
    4. ^NRG1PY: section history additional in start-order
      1. ^NRG1NL: removed ‘^NR5TN7 The bill almost certainly have significant impact as:’ as better said via net overall significant good
  3. ^NR4QV6 No one deserves to be avoidably wronged.
  4. ^NR4Q9F ‘it’s just the right thing to do’ –to use a phrase I’ve regularly heard President Obama say (on other topics) (example recently).
    1. ^NR4QHX reasons, from biggest first
      1. ^NR4QJF this country is rightfully founded on maximum-practical liberty
        
        ^NR5WIM America, what do we need to remind ourselves we stand for?
        
        ^NRGE45: We know the answer: we put at our leading entrance the Statue of LIBERTY, our seminal value, and have her announce ‘Send these, the HOMELESS, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!’.
        
        ^NRGE4G: But then quietly 3 of 4 California cities OUTLAW SLEEPING in ONE’S OWN LEGALLY-LOCATED shelter –well unless that shelter is one of our AUTHORIZED homes (yes, in America, the home you “choose” to live in, plus where you get your sleep, needs to be authorized) costing about 35-TIMES more! ($11K car vs. $399K house) plus unmovable so repossess-able & evict-able!
        
        ^NRGE5H: So Boy! has our housing & lending industry greed & related consumerism corrupted what we Americans are supposed to be standing for! Moreover, especially by lawfully extorting residents to pay 35x more for housing, it darn looks like the “unfixable” homeless problem which we forever complain about is actually what our greed & unprecedented materialism fabricates! (Or did the American Indian have to take out a 30-year mortgage just to pay for his house? Hardly!) And after misleading to the world at our entrance we are liberty plus home for the homeless! (Well “sure”, just long as the empowered’s money & material gluttony don’t suffer.)
        
        ^NRGE8V: No, now it’s cleanup time! …NOT of the homeless but of the homeless’ & actually everyone’s abusers; time for preservation of LIBERTY, plus protection of our planet: time for laws & social-norms to ensure the basic right that nobody prevents nor disparages any adult harmlessly resting, sleeping, or living at whatever location s/he lawfully occupies!
        
        ^NR4QLZ therefore victimless crimes should not be crimes.
        
        ^NR4P52 Therefore no law nor social norm should prohibit nor disparage an adult from sleeping or resting anywhere s/he wishes provided s/he has legal access to be there.
        
        ^NRGFJ7: –it is else needs to be a civil liberty
        
        ^NR4QP5 therefore applies to resting or sleeping in a motor-vehicle/car
        
        ^NR5UUW Living from a vehicle itself does no harm, so should not be considered & treated as bad.
        
        ^NR5AP9 ‘Rep. Kansen Chu, D-Santa Clara, who is pushing AB718, said his goal is simple – to stop the criminalization of extreme poverty.’ quoting NR4PMT –excellently put!
        
        ^NR60XP And I go further: the bill notably helps stop the criminalization of workable housing and sleeping where you want –but perhaps it’s hard for high-ranking government officials to say that much since it too much exposes the immorality we’ve let the housing & lending industries do.
        
        ^NRFZPY: Provided one is legally located (which this bill provides for), ‘the inalienable rights ..to.. life, liberty, & pursuit of happiness’ naturally
        
        ^NRGFSM: include:
        
        ^NRFZZ3: ones right to live, so to shelter & rest & sleep, as one wishes!
        
        ^NR4QRK and seemingly every life form’s basic right to rest & sleep in peace!
        
        ^NRGFTC: so mandate laws & social norms to ensure this.
      2. ^NR4RIU Prohibiting sleeping in a lawfully parked vehicle is routine and enables subtle but very serious bad:
        
        ^NR4QTM —to the degree that I suspect those {opposed to the bill} or {wanting laws prohibiting resting & sleeping in legally parked vehicles} have, sometimes unknowingly, underlying overall bad motives, as is well suggested by none of the rebuttals apparently holding water, as…
        
        ^NR4RK1 prohibiting this then allows empowered-groups to, both consciously & unconsciously, make & use laws to extort others for their personal gain.
        
        ^NR4ROG bad done: financial- & ego-extortion at the expense of liberty forces everyone to live in standard housing ‘else suffer notable negative consequences: be notably penalized or/and/so disrespected’
        
        ^NRGH11: even when 1 or more of:
        
        ^NR4ZIS it unnecessarily limits freedom of those resting, sleeping from vehicles (so of everyone living from vehicles), specifically
        
        ^NR51IM does a kind of wrongful lifestyle discrimination (against an individual living from his/her vehicle even if s/he’s done no harm), so similar to wrongful religious & caste & disability discrimination.
        
        ^NR5SQZ because it notably works against those who can’t well afford standard housing and even though here (sleeping in a lawfully parked car) they do no harm, it’s notably wrongfully discriminating against the poor
        
        ^NR51GZ removing liberties on public property as if were the rule-maker‘s private property
        
        ^NR4RCP very typically they can’t afford it (and indeed these rules make that worse by also pushing property prices to be overinflated)
        
        ^NR4RD2 having standard housing, not just a vehicle, is a significant avoidable waste of land & other resources in (the arguably many cases) when a vehicle could also do the job for housing
        
        ^NR5SY0 including while a typical automobile obviously isn’t ideal general housing, motorhomes were precisely designed for this purpose including per their name (motorized home), and are affordable, costing ~1/10th what a standard home would be, plus can be easily moved around, but sadly many cities have even further prohibition of these & other RVs.
        
        ^NR4RCT they don’t want glued-down housing (would prefer being in a vehicle), as I readily do.
        
        ^NRGH2F: ‘else suffer notable negative consequences: be notably penalized or/and/so disrespected’:
        
        ^NRGPOB: most notably freedom limiting laws, and then the resultant social stigma against all who do otherwise, of 2 types:
        
        ^NRGH7V: vagrancy laws
        
        ^NRGHPY: such as laws in 74% of California cities against sleeping/resting in cars, which this bill aims to rid.
        
        ^NRGU6R: naturally desired & pushed by all groups with the selfish money angle plus the insecurities motives.
        
        ^NRGHK5: which are similar and about as “moral” as segregation (Jim Crow) laws –from unjustly removing liberty
        
        ^NRGU92: causing notable needless suffering.
        
        ^NRGATZ: zoning laws
        
        ^NRGQHZ: foremost making it impossible for most people to do what humans did for 99% of human existance, live & work at the same location, as now property is zone for one one use (and the more seperate uses, the more typically extortionary), as this routinely at least doubles the number of buildings & land which need be bought plus then requiring transport between work & home which is typically also means buying else leasing a car –so easily needlesy increasing consumption & materialism by ~2.2x!
        
        ^NRGU4V: as my first experience of big waste due to zoning.
        
        ^NRGQK0: so naturally desired & pushed by all groups with the selfish money angle.
        
        ^NRGULF: resulting in:
        
        ^NRGUMW: undeservedly making the worst abusers richer & more arrogant
        
        ^NRGUPH: cutting our basic liberties to live & even sleep where & how we choose
        
        ^NRGHNI: specifically resulting in a kind of wrongful lifestyle discrimination
        
        ^NRGUPO: severely hurting the environment via unprecidented resource wasting
        
        ^NR4RU7 empowers abusers, notably the housing especially land industry & enormous related consumerism industries, to, from roughly most significant:
        
        ^NR524S seek undeserved (so selfish) financial rewards they can often-easily get by abusing others rights:
        
        ^NRGQT8: From the standard housing especially land industry and huge related industries’ immoral practices of
        
        ^NRG33A: wrongful anti-competitive practices of keeping the valid competitor shelter solutions, such resting/sleeping/living from a vehicle and most any inexpensive sheltering, illegal & not-socially-acceptable, accomplished notably via vagrancy laws
        
        ^NRGQVK: creating dramatic artificial demand by removing the practice & even idea (of about 99% of human existence) that one live & work at the same location or even nearby, replacing it instead with the custom & need these be seperate, indeed notably physically seperated (so requiring at least 2x as many buildings plus car to get between them all), accomplished notably via zoning laws.
        
        ^NRG7UJ: done by
        
        ^NR50M4 those who stand to profit financially from land & fixed-building property sales & costs being excessive from over-inflated demand & over-inflated prices
        
        ^NRG81S: so spottable via “follow the money”
        
        ^NR50MB and they’ve achieved this, as currently the cost to house someone in standard housing is about 35x more to buy, and requires around 10x more ongoing resources, than to house a person via a vehicle
        
        ^NRGC54: so especially [done by] these groups:
        
        ^NR4RG0 first off, home builders and major real estate investors including land-owners by laws forcing everyone to live in so buy else rent their much-more-expensive (and much-more expansive) shelters/buildings indeed an excess number of them
        
        ^NRG8ZA: financial institutions, specifically pretty much the entire banking system except stock & security trading,
        
        ^NRG9HG: by not 1 but 2 key factors:
        
        ^NRG8D1: lenders of money to build/buy/upgrade buildings especially homes (so most banks) then force people to take out loans several time larger so several times more profit.
        
        ^NR4RY4money lenders of all kinds (so also including smaller lenders, as auto-lenders & even credit cards) really want all borrowers locked down to fixed locations, not in some vehicle where they could easily move, so lenders can much more easily hassle them and repossess their property, thus enabling lenders to lend them a lot more money as they can both force money repayment or/and reposes what it bought.
        
        ^NRGAZW:all this lending then near fully powers substantial related industries as credit rating agencies, title insurance, collection agencies, bankruptcy lawyers, etc.
        
        ^NRG8TZ: suppliers of excessive consumerism now that both:
        
        ^NRGARD: people have big homes plus separate work places so need furnishing, devices, clothes, cars, & accessories to fill them.
        
        ^NRGARN: the shelter immobility allows for over-lending of money to buy this stuff.
        
        ^NR53RD Hotels which want to force those in need of temporary housing to stay with them; otherwise they could deservedly lose significant revenue, perhaps 10%, from about 10% of their otherwise guests now deciding to conserve the world’s resources & their pocketbooks and instead stay overnight via their motor vehicles.
        
        ^NR4UHM RV parks which want to force vehicle dwellers into paying them high fees (else suffer the consequences), fees often nearing a hotel price (as $50/night) but here for mostly just 1 or 2 lengths of car parking which could be had free on the public streets if only there weren’t these laws.
        
        ^NR4ZQK all the other abusers listed in this abusers section: so also ‘home & business-location renters, managers, & especially owners’
        
        ^NRGAFL: the result is today’s America has huge (err, obscene) amounts of lending & buying consumerism ~100x that of our ancestors (as the American Indian) so in excess of what’s healthy long-term for humans and even way in excess of all other countries in the world, which:
        
        ^NRGAHM: makes all the above businesses rich & delighting from all the profit, but
        
        ^NRGAOC: routinely has people lending & buying more than they should, starting first with housing but certainly not just!
        
        ^NRGAQG: as we’ve most profoundly witnessed now country-wide recently with the 2008 US housing bubble
        
        ^NRGA1N: and long-term very bad for the average citizen, fooling & changing them into thinking ‘just buying something solves everything’ so:
        
        ^NRGBKY: becoming a prisoner of their excessive possessions, now even with a hording reality show.
        
        ^NRGBL5: routinely getting into significant debt: ‘I owe, I owe, it’s off to work I go’ says the bumper-sticker.
        
        ^NRGBLC: routinely becoming physically unhealthy as fat/obese (as staying physically healthy actually mostly takes something you can’t buy: your actually working to stay fit)
        
        ^NRGBKR: regularly becoming materialistic instead of personable –my home, SoCal especially LA & especially Orange County, has a special infamy there.
        
        ^NRGBJF: and fools everyone, both business & consumers, into wasting unprecedented & obscene amounts of natural resources & polluting, so killer for the environment.
        
        ^NRGBQR: so in short results in the BnL (Big & Large) corporate future of WALL-E, the video displayed above right.
        
        ^NR52KL feel better at the unjust expense of others (per ‘follow the insecurities’):
        
        ^NR4R7G home & business-location renters, managers, & especially owners with bad motives of:
        
        ^NR4ZRO remove liberties of others NOT-on-their-property (so wrong to tamper), notably remove them from living from there,
        
        ^NRGGT1: motivated seemingly always by 1 or more bad reasons:
        
        ^NR4ZYK destructive envy or/and ‘the rest of us suffered, so you have to, too’ (so including hazing), due to those living from vehicles getting a great deal of the benefit from living from this location but (justifiably) at a fraction of the of the cost (due to their frugality & sacrifices, notably living from a vehicle instead of standard housing), but all is seem by the perpetrators are ‘they aren’t getting charged as much as I was, so they have to be stopped’
        
        ^NR501L destructive fear, including paranoia, from fearing crimes and wrongs will be done by those living from vehicles before they’ve done any crimes. No,…
        
        ^NRGG9Q: that is “guilty until proven innocent” (reverse of usual) so then “Do unto others before they do unto you” –the directives for an UNhealthy society, not founding America directives, as…
        
        ^NRGG0S: it is immoral & needs to be illegal to take away another person’s liberties (so typically hurt him/her) where s/he has not tangibly hurt us, as just because people are afraid of that without proof for this case.
        
        ^NR505J destructive fear of the harmless but currently unfamiliar, similar to what motivates hate crimes
        
        ^NR52N5 (and again push their property prices to be overinflated)
        
        ^NRGV4M: so this gorup does its most notable damage via vagrancy laws.
  5. ^NRG1SG: The economic costs are gradual plus should be near 0, as:
    1. ^NRG1YD: requires no government funds on levels higher than at most county.
    2. ^NRG1ZA: county & city costs might be lightly affected, but all increases each can & should self-finance.
    3. ^NRG29W: Due to the new housing/sleeping/resting option (vehicles), vehicle & standard-housing prices should change but deservedly and only around 1%.
      1. ^NRG23S: appropriately, standard-home prices, especially in areas most desirable for vehicle resting & sleeping, should lower as it rids standard-housing’s over inflation due to this valid competitor formerly being prohibited
      2. ^NRG286: motor vehicle prices may increase little due to the increased usefulness plus hopefully demand & offering of further features to support their additional use for sleeping & ideally general housing.
  6. ^NR53I9 so far all arguments-against-this I’ve seen do not appear to hold water. Here’s every one I’ve seen and my rebuttal showing that.
    1. ^NR5VTI As “effective” misleads, these arguments against generally start out with something that is true, or at least sounds like it could be or sort-of, then construe it so what is a good is instead twisted as a bad. I just hope they weren’t consciously made to mis-lead so “well”, but some probably were.
    2. ^NR5UQ2 quoting-then-correcting every argument against I’ve seen from where I first heard of this bill, starting from the most “frightening” first.
      1. ^NR53LR ‘leaders in Laguna Beach and Dana Point, and several other California cities, say a state law would limit local control and jeopardize residents’ safety.’ quoting NR4PMT
        
        ^NR591U Well yes these and other S. Cal beach cities will probably be the most notably affected.
        
        ^NR5UYP But nothing has been done wrong so you should not be limiting it in first place! So
        
        ^NR53OK ‘Limit local control’? You betcha as here you well deserve it.
        
        ^NR5V0L ‘jeopardize residents’ safety’?
        
        ^NR5V2Y ‘jeopardize’? Um, that’s a bit of an overstatement. Or are people living from in front of your house (so then you can well identify them) also going to jump out and rob & assault you? (And perhaps then continue to live there? -as you also mis-think they also won’t reasonably be going away.) I think very unlikely!
        
        ^NR5V8V No, the affect should be relatively small (overall), so nothing is going to jeopardized! (well except some privileged folks’ misguided egos)
        
        ^NR594C At worst the city is going have to scale up its city services a little, just as it normally does, and where the additional traffic can be readily made to pay for, all as city breakdown details.
      2. ^NR5RR3 ‘LOCAL[ city & county] CONTROL AT RISK.’
        
        ^NR5RRK Yes, just at it should be.
        
        ^NR5RWS If a municipality has the arrogance & recklessness to take start taking away basic human rights plus wrongly & notably discriminate against the economically disadvantaged, in this case prohibiting one being able to sleep or even rest in one’s own legally parked vehicle, then, yes, it’s about time bigger government (in this case the state) step and end such abuse to citizens.
        
        ^NR5RXP Not much different when just recently a few stubborn states apparently completely forgot one of our country’s basic principles, maximum-practical liberty, here specifically ‘Due Process and .. Equal Protection’, so decided they could prohibit which sex a person was still allowed marry, until 2015.06.26 the US Supreme Court addressed their dissention by overruling them so allowing the whole nation be free to marry whatever sex each person chooses.
        
        ^NR5RX6 You abuse it, you lose it. It’s that simple.
      3. ^NR59D2 say critics ‘the bill does nothing to address the basic reasons why people sleep in their cars in the first place.’ quoting NR4PMT
        
        ^NR59DJ Absolutely wrong! Does this do a huge amount? No. But does it do a substantial amount. You betcha!
        
        ^NR59IX From someone who’s done it, why people sleep in cars appears to be 3 reasons, all of which this law notably improves:
        
        ^NR59K8 for short-term, just to get some quick rest as ‘when at work at lunchtime I could really use a nap but can’t drive home & back in time’ or ‘I’m driving a long trip and am tired so to be a safe driver I want to stop over for some sleep but there’s no rest-stop in sight’. Well now I can do both these things without reasonable fear of being rudely awakened by some law enforcer or getting some fine or ticket.
        
        ^NR59QQ for long term, the reasons people do it appear 1 to 2, and these are both aided:
        
        ^NR59W4 If I’m homeless as I can’t afford more, now with this law
        
        ^NR5AU5 ‘For those homeless people who still have vehicles, sleeping in a car or in the back of a truck is a better option than sleeping on a bus bench or in bushes or on a public sidewalk.’ quoting NR4PMT, so
        
        ^NR5A02 I can have ‘a small measure of dignity for people struggling to survive on the streets’ quoting NR4PMT,
        
        ^NR5AVZ actually a big measure of dignity in my experience & opinion,
        
        ^NR5AWI and decent sleep, as much less likely people or things passing by will wake me, readily even to be mean to me
        
        ^NR5AZ5 and safety for me, so much less likely passers by won’t kick me or sit on me, or otherwise hurt me, again readily even to be mean to me,
        
        ^NR5DI7 ‘Some national statistics show that although homeless people are disproportionally perpetrators of some property crimes, they also are more likely to be victims of crimes of violence, from rape to murder.’
        
        ^NR5DNZ ‘“If we’re really concerned with the safety of our community, shouldn’t we be concerned with the safety of those most vulnerable?” .. the homeless deserve to be safe, too. … says Eric Tars, senior attorney for the National Coalition on Homelessness and Poverty’
        
        ^NR5B1X and much more safety for my belongings, so passers-by won’t just grab or trash my stuff when I sleep or when I need to step away from it (as now I can leave it in my car) as when I need to go into a restaurant to eat or go to the restroom, or go in for a job interview or into my job for work (yes, some people have jobs and are still homeless in expensive-property SoCal)
        
        ^NR5BAG and protects me from the elements & weather not entirely but notably more than being outside, protecting me from rain & snow & wind & cold, plus, at least for extreme cold or heat, cover me for at least short time (as long as I can afford to run the engine) via the vehicle’s heating & air conditioning
        
        ^NR5A0A plus it likely will give me considerable hope to move up to better housing, as:
        
        ^NR5BEK Jumping from paying $0/mo rent to say $1600/mo for an apartment, and when minimum wage jobs and certainly welfare & SSDI don’t pay nearly that much just to cover rent, is pretty much unthinkable.
        
        ^NR5BEX But paying a few $100s/month (in gas and vehicle payments) is something I can afford. And if then gives me all 5 housing benefits, just detailed, until I’m together enough to start looking for those higher paying jobs to finally score say an apartment.
        
        ^NR5A9X If I’m the (sadly rare) type who doesn’t like wastefulness & lack of mobility of standard housing (which I am, and which many full time RVers are), now I do that legally –and without being extorted by RV parks –for people like me, that’s a huge benefit!
        
        ^NR5AFJ I am a reasonable expert at living from a vehicle without anyone being able to tell, but that sort of Anne Frank hiding is NOT the lifestyle I want to live, nor would want anyone to live. So a law like this makes a huge benefit.
      4. ^NR5CJQ ‘“Someone who is living in their car could pull up in front of someone’s house and live there until the city passed an ordinance restricting everyone from parking there,” [said] Dan Carrigg, legislative director of the League of California Cities’
        
        ^NR5CL0 No, hopefully by accident, that’s not really an accurate portrayal, as
        
        ^NR5CNM Foremost, it’s a problem which doesn’t really happen, as the article replies: ‘But Capo Beach Church Pastor Jens Christy, who has worked with the homeless for years, said it’s not likely that someone living in his car would camp out for weeks in one spot.’ -right.
        
        ^NR5DVG indeed more like parks in a different spot every day.
        
        ^NR5DAI and for several good reasons.
        
        ^NR5CP7 Los Angeles County already has a default law restricting anyone from parking on street parking for more than 72 hours in same spot, so vehicles, from everyone, already get moved regularly.
        
        ^NR5DB2 And even without this law, I’ve always done this when parking on the street in front of property I was not at, in case there was a law or just to allow for street cleaning & keeping things moving.
        
        ^NR5CQX From years of first hand knowledge, a person living from a vehicle has places to go, as to buy food or do laundry or go to the gym (as to get a shower –so ideally every day) or go to storage or go to a job and go see friends or an event or to refill on electricity or gas or dump the dump tank or toilet. Rest assured, the vehicle generally moves every day, and often several times a day.
        
        ^NR5CXI Unlike living in traditional housing, if one lives from a vehicle, then if you don’t like your surroundings, can move to someone else in just minutes! (well as long as the vehicle is drivingable, which it almost always is as it’s so important then). So all my experience, all a standard-house resident would have to do is politely & directly say ‘we don’t want you here’ and vehicle dweller would be gone, even if s/he had a legal right to continue to say. As why hassle any unhappy neighbors when you can gone to somewhere else in just minutes?
        
        ^NR5GL0 Finally, for the standard home resident, instead of bitching about the vehicle dweller who happened to park in front of your house, how about instead living up to your title of “neighbor” and trying to help him/her? Indeed, as a standard house resident, there is probably something you could teach him/her so s/he also could accomplish what you have. If you want him/her to be like you, then help him/her, notably by showing him/her how!
        
        ^NR5DWG Second, if there still is truly a problem, (you should know per your title) one doesn’t need anything as extreme as an ‘ordinance restricting[preventing] everyone from parking there’, so shouldn’t be suggesting suggest it. Rather,
        
        ^NR5E2Z just as whenever parking becomes overloaded, you need the usual fixes:
        
        ^NR5E4C parking is metered
        
        ^NR5E3T standard-home residents get a possibly limited number of parking passes (to park less than metered rates, as typically for free)
        
        ^NR5E4K build more parking structures where you can & probably-should meter those, too.
      5. ^NR5BMS ‘legislation that overturns such [vehicle] restrictions, such as AB718, won’t [fully ]solve homelessness.’
        
        ^NR5BN6 –so what? Why even say that? Or is it that some crazies out there have got us thinking we can only consider solutions that solve everything? As here there ain’t any such solutions! Rather, we need to look for solutions which help bit-by-bit, and this one takes out a good chunk.
        
        ^NR5BRD ‘she believes such laws should be part of a broader push to eventually improving affordable [standard housing] ..’ Beware of housing agencies & their lobbyists suggesting the only real solution is to build enough housing, and have somebody pay for it –if not the occupants then taxpayers. As that WON’T work for everyone (including some, as me, reasonably may not want it no matter how much money we have, and others won’t take it for other reasons). But it will make one group happy: the builders & housing managers –i.e., the lobbyists — from getting lots of money, typically from government, to build & fill those homes.
      6. ^NR5DQO ‘In Dana Point’s letter of opposition to AB718, Olvera argues that instead of passing more legislation on homelessness, Sacramento should encourage cities to focus on “funding for affordable housing and emergency shelters.”’
        
        ^NR5DRG Sounds reasonable on FIRST pass, but isn’t, as:
        
        ^NR5DS4 This bill
        
        ^NR5DSZ protects a fundamental right.
        
        ^NR5EE7 does substantial benefit.
        
        ^NR5GI7 is super simple & elegant, indeed just a few sentences.
        
        ^NR5EY1 has extremely low government economic cost
        
        ^NR5DTO It costs state & counties 0 to try
        
        ^NR5EHZ The additional economic costs to cities should be small and relatively easy for the city to for adjust for.
        
        ^NR5GS8 Instead of hiding all the homeless away pretending the problem is fixed, allows them to now much more respectably circulate among society including where individuals might further help them.
        
        ^NR5END it actually IS providing some affordable housing: vehicles.
        
        ^NR5EO9 whereas getting ‘affordable [standard] housing and emergency shelters’
        
        ^NR5EVB has pros/cons in comparison:
        
        ^NR5EVN probably will do notably further benefit BUT
        
        ^NR5ERT it is arguably NOT a fundamental right
        
        ^NR5ES2 requires generally 1000x in money, time, & work get started, and probably 100x more to run & maintain
        
        ^NR5GVU hide all the homeless away in cheap and still-taxpayer-funded housing, so the rest of society can pretend they’ve fixed the problem even though they’re really segregated away and in cheap housing which tax payers are still paying for.
        
        ^NR5EXE so while getting standard housing is definitely worth considering and probably doing, it needs to take a backseat to doing the immediate & moral & super-inexpensive solution of this bill.
        
        ^NR5F4G so No, again one doesn’t get to use this usual ‘we just-build-more affordable [standard] housing line’ to escape from doing what’s right: here open up this obvious housing possibility right in front of our faces which IS truly affordable.
  7. ^NR5C2O ‘“It’s a step in the right direction,” [says] Megan Hustings, acting executive director for the National Coalition for the Homeless’
  8. ^NR5WAR notable additional bill PROS, plus interesting contrast with the usual proposed solution, in that last comparison
2. ^NR54DF demographic & financial impacts
  1. ^NR54DX should NOT be why we make this decision long-term, as, as soon as the cost can be afforded (which seems likely now), we should not be punishing for what is not a crime.
  2. ^NR53ZI Allowing living from vehicles would likely
    1. ^NR54M2 slightly increase more affordable housing
      1. ^NR54UN as
        
        ^NR54OR while living from a vehicle is ~1/35th the shelter cost and ~1/10th ongoing resources of standard housing and now everyone could potentially do it,
        
        ^NR54TM America is VERY accustomed to standard full housing
      2. ^NR54UY so those choosing this option will be probably
        
        ^NR54VJ ~0.5% of the population, and while it may grow, the growth should be slow and maybe at most limited to 5% of the population
        
        ^NR54W9 1 or more:
        
        ^NR54XR mostly those who can’t afford nicer
        
        ^NR55LE speaking financially and NOT ethically, this group is not the one a city/community most wants to gain and IS a group they often want to lose, BUT just because a person doesn’t have a lot of money does NOT mean they commit crimes or are unethical, especially when there are endless tales of financially rich people doing both,
        
        ^NR54YM a minority who find traditional housing resource-overkill plus mobility-limiting (that would be me, whenever I choose vehicle living)
        
        ^NR558K 1 or more:
        
        ^NR55AY a majority from those now paying for traditional housing instead using a vehicle
        
        ^NR545K causing an overall slight reduction in consumption of normal housing
        
        ^NR5592 a minority from some now living on the streets upgrading to a motor vehicle now that this much more affordable option is legal
    2. ^NR56YH slight less vehicle costs to the individual & society, including less gasoline & other fuel use
      1. ^NR56ZP for Americans who now use this vehicle living option, I expect a net 1/3rd savings on their car costs especially fuel, as:
        
        ^NR57E0 Americans typically work 5 days on, 2 days off (week) and 50 weeks of work vs. 2 weeks vacation, and
        
        ^NR571I some will choose to live from their vehicle at work or at school or hospital or wherever they have to regularly be, rather than commute back & forth 5 days per week, now instead only doing 1 time (say in Monday morn and out Friday eve), which will reduce their vehicle costs including fuel to about 1/4th!
        
        ^NR575U some, probably more, will take more trips as on the weekend or their 2-week vacation as now they can stay in their vehicle instead of having to rent a hotel, so this will increase vehicle including fuel costs, so but again typically only non-work times.
    3. ^NR5852 breakdown by city/community:
      1. ^NR545T the visitor population of these people will slightly increase/decrease proportionate to how popular the destination is for visitors
      2. ^NR546T the resident population of these people in a city will slightly increase/decrease according how long-term desirable it is to live in that place.
        
        ^NR57UW Note long-term desirability of a city is not the same visitor desirability
        
        ^NR57Z6 as that:
        
        ^NR57Y3 more on job & general resources availability
        
        ^NR57Y9 less on prettiness.
        
        ^NR58AT more on stability
        
        ^NR58F1 example: Laguna Beach would be entirely wiped out by tsunami(!)
        
        ^NR57ZY so some places visitors will increase but residents decrease, and visa versa
      3. ^NR581K Cities & places with regular bad weather should be proportionally less affected by these rules as sleeping requires good climate control which is difficult to do in a vehicle, unless it is kept powered on, which then adds a tremendous fuel cost.
      4. ^NR5623 wherever these people go (else leave), be it visiting or residence,
        
        ^NR58HY California beach cities & very near, especially the nicer weather SoCal, will likely be most affected by having the most notable changes, from
        
        ^NR58N5 increased visitors (for weather & beauty reasons)
        
        ^NR58NK possibly increased residence by those getting the majority of their income from the government (social security including disability, welfare, military retirement, some of which can start quite young) else from tourist-related jobs, now that this beach living becomes affordable due to living from a vehicle.
        
        ^NR57PO that city/community will have a probably-proportionate:
        
        ^NR54AI increase the need for services, both public (including police & medical) and private (food & many more).
        
        ^NR567S increase in motor vehicle revenue: parking, tickets, gas & gas taxes, mechanical service.
      5. ^NR56ET a city may need to adjust its motor vehicle revenue to match the amount of public services needed.
        
        ^NR56KG most fairly it only needs to adjust the hourly rates for parking
        
        ^NR56NF and collect any substantial funds for over-due parking, due to having parking meters take credit cards which can charge as much as needed, so most overdue charges (as ticket for going over the parking meter) should be eliminated.
        
        ^NR56NS if more/fewer vehicles are being slept in, then these charges should be proportionately raised/lowered.
        
        ^NR57H7 residents may be displeased by these parking costs if increased.
        
        ^NR57KW In particular, residents in standard housing may say their visitors are now charged too much money.
        
        ^NR57L6 This can be addressed by saying all of:
        
        ^NR57LZ America is a land of liberty, and it’s not moral to prohibit a person from sleeping in their lawfully parked car, so this is a necessary cost,
        
        ^NR57N9 residents & visitors alike now have the much more affordable housing option of living from one’s car.
        
        ^NRGL85: and ‘possibly full-time residents could be issued passes for lower-cost parking’ adds proofreader Glyph
      6. ^NR58VL Some cities which have increases in these people, especially cities which are wealthy or well-off, will probably object for the invalid reasons mentioned.
        
        ^NR58YG These objections need to be addressed by explaining how they are invalid.
^NRET3G: additional background
1. ^NRET47: The bill’s Analysis section
  1. ^NRET5S: has 5+ additional documents, all *.pdf, on the bill
    1. ^NRET6T: Unfortunately most of the text appears repeated in 2 to ~4 documents sometimes with some changes, presumably as prior documents were used to create future documents
      1. ^NREX6Z: so it will take some work to extract out all latest text w/o duplicates, which I may do later.
    2. ^NREX7O: on quick read, compared to what is in this post already, not here is:
      1. ^NREXDT: some useful stats
      2. ^NREXEQ: the list of supporters & opponents
      3. ^NREXF2: more specifics on some of the arguments
    3. ^NREYF4: NREYF4: ‘07/06/15- Senate Governance And Finance’ (currently latest document)
    4. ^NREYTP: NREYTP: ‘05/21/15- Assembly Floor Analysis’
2. ^NREXGD: other articles on this bill besides where I first heard of this bill
3. ^NREXHM: other articles on living from cars, living from vehicles using street parking, and related laws in other states.
^NR5OSP what to do now to support this bill & similar laws
1. ^NRGJOT: to support this bill
  1. ^NRGJNK: see ‘the bill’s status’ for which stage the bill to see who needs contacting & persuading.
  2. ^NR5OT4 At least until when then Senate decides (2015.07.08), let your California senator know how you feel.
    1. ^NR61WH First, find your senator (and assembly) representatives website entering (I understand) your voting address, then on the Senator, click CONTACT then ‘Send Senator .. a Message’ (a URL of form http://sdNN.senate.ca.gov/contact/message where ‘NN’ is your district number).
      1. ^NR6K15 Currently the message body can be up to 2000 characters pure-ASCII text.
    2. ^NR627P For the message body, I suggest…
      1. ^NR6JYL the ~1100 character letter quoted below once you copy & modify it to accurately fit you, including replace all (3) instances of ‘NR627P’ with your own message ID;
      2. ^NR6K0B Note the implicit hyperlinks will lose their links when pasted into pure ASCII; that is fine as the 2 key hyperlinks are spelled out.
      ^NR5OU7 STRONG YES ON California bill AB718 (allow sleeping in lawfully parked vehicles) plus interesting web post on it with detailed analysis
      
      Dear California Senator of the district in which I’m registered to vote,
      
      This is my 1st time ever writing any congress-person. I write you now as I feel this matter is especially important and because http://1.JotHere.com/4812?N46Ref=NR5OU7#NR5OT4 helped me get started writing my government representatives.
      
      As a citizen registered in your district for about the last ___ years, plus regularly voting, plus especially as someone fairly familiar & experienced with bill’s subject area as __, please cast my vote for you to vote a strong YES on California bill AB718 which I understand is being voted on 2015.07.08; and thanks to California government for developing this bill. The web post http://1.JotHere.com/4812?N46Ref=NR5OU7#NR4KV9 expresses what are also my sentiments & reasoning here. Plus that post may be useful to you & others to convince people of this position, including after any passage or on other places it’s voted on, as the author ‘systematically & comprehensively identif[ies] all the issues .. this bill raises plus shows how every rebuttal .. against it does not seem to hold water, and the post is written by.. a California combat vet with years of experience in all the housing types under consideration.’. Hope this helps & thanks for representing me here.
^NR6LLL Also a HUGE THANK YOU! for the gutsy & pioneering California State Congressional leaders really making this bill AB-718 happen, especially…
1. ^NR6LR6 ‘Introduced by Assembly Member’ ‘Rep. Kansen Chu, D-Santa Clara’(District 25) -thank you!
2. ^NR6LUW ‘Coauthor: Assembly Member’ Rep. Lorena Gonzalez, D-S. San Diego(District 80) -thank you!
^NR4SJJ ‘my motivation for expressing this’:
1. ^NR6QIX I have years of first-hand experience of how bad it is without these protections –the continual exhausting stress as this section starts to reveal– so I see this law as long-overdue and want it for myself, should I be in more vehicle living situations plus even the occasional nap or overnight trip, plus especially for the many others out there I’ve seen, and everyone, as ‘it’s just the right thing to do’.
2. ^NR4SJU A citizen of California for nearly all my life, for years now (since when I bought my first inexpensive motorhome 1993~ and especially with my later much-more portable street-living vehicles as my full-time home, {it being not allowed or/and unacceptable to sleep within ones legally parked vehicle} I’ve noticed and well-witnessed firsthand and been-quite-upset-by, as:
3. ^NR4U0Z From years of first-hand experience, people politely living from motor vehicles are typically heavily abused by our present laws and/so cultural expectations, which are (breaking up the sentence parts):
  1. ^NR4TVL people NOT living & especially sleeping out-in-the-open (as on sidewalks & door stoops & park benches) but instead politely living from their own motor vehicle legally parked on public roads & parking,
  2. ^NR4TW9 must still go to great pain & shame to hide from virtually everyone the fact they’re doing that, especially hide at dusk & night that they are in, and especially resting & asleep in, their own legally-parked vehicle, almost to the degree of Ann Frank’s lifestyle having to hide from the Nazis!
  3. ^NR4TWX else readily suffer:
    1. ^NR4U53 immediate wrongful rousting (so very disturbing/panicking waking & sleepless) by neighbors (NOT being neighborly) & security & police,
    2. ^NR4U59 plus wrongful ticketing, fining, or/and impounding of their vehicle or/and them,
      1. ^NR4U65 plus wrongful shaming & disgust that what they do here is illegal and/or not right
  4. ^NR4U4C –even though what they do here is polite & harming no one.
^NR4YY0 “author(s) background (on the topic)”
1. ^NR4PMT where I first heard of this bill: I first learned about this bill 2014.07,04 from seeing on that day’s newspaper front page http://ocregister.com/articles/homeless-670180-bill-people.html
  1. ^NR4Q07 That says ‘The bill passed the Assembly and is scheduled for a vote Wednesday[ 2015.07.08] in the state Senate, though its prospects are unclear. A bill that would have created a homeless bill of rights in California was defeated in the Legislature two years ago.’ so
    1. ^NR4PVE I wish I knew of this bill sooner in order to have more time to write this post, and gather more support for it to ensure it passes the Senate vote today[ 2015.07.08]; but it seems the post could have other significant uses.
2. ^NR4YYM And that article really got me motivated: see ‘my motivation for expressing this’.
3. ^NR5H8V Mostly in California, I’ve lived in and managed all sorts of housing.
  1. ^NR5MOI I grew up in large houses my parents owned.
  2. ^NR5MOX I’ve rented apartments for significant periods.
  3. ^NRGS43: I discovered zoning especially some of the significant bad it does.
    1. ^NRGSPA: In one of my 1st major jobs out of college, I worked as coder at Oracle Corporation headquarters, where the company had bought a lot of bare land in case of growth but had only 1/3rd filled it with its ultra-fancy work buildings.
    2. ^NRGSPS: Well there I, following most every other geek worker, had rented an apartement in the nearest good housing about 4 miles drive each way (adjacent Foster City), costing me ~$900/mo going to wind as rent.
    3. ^NRGSR8: But this housing arrangement really seemed rediculous that I and most all my co-workers were throwing away this good money on rent plus driving about 8 miles every weekday, plus unable to go home (fast enough) for a quick lunch time nap, when the company had plenty of used good land just 100 feet from our building’s front door. So casually I proposed I & other employees each buy an RV and camp on the company’s adjacent used land.
      1. ^NRGST4: Well as more experienced workers should have warned me, my proposal was instantly rephrased ‘having world database leader flashy Oracle Corp HQ also feature a [cheezy] “trailer park”’, something apparently considered so shocking by company execs that within hours I was informed my proposal had been reviewed by evenfamously ostentagous Larry Ellison himself (Oracle’s head) –and (predictably) did not go over well.
      2. ^NRGT1Y: However, the non-asthetic and more rational reason I was told my plan was shot down, but still quite indicative of bad things, was zoning laws, something I had never heard of before then, specifically that the company land was zoned as commercial and having anyone living there, even company employees, would require it be rezoned as residential, which was readily doable but would cut its value to maybe 1/3rd and, due to government ordenances, might or would-be difficult or impossible to zone back to commercial when the time for Oracle’s eventual planed use came.
        
        ^NRGTH2: so reportedly due to zoning laws, for years, good land right outside everyone’s workplace went to bare & to full waste also forcing hundreds of employees like me, plus the enviornment, to suffer from wasting significant gas, personal time, auto costs, and especially high rent payments, from inablity to use it so having to live at least 4 miles drive away.
        
        ^NRGTSE: See also the general zoning law problems here.
  4. ^NR5MPC For many years I lived in & managed a 7 bedroom home including renting out its many extra rooms to several tenants –significant in showing I also I know a bit about what home ownership is about.
  5. ^NR5MQB But perhaps most interesting and relevant are my many years of ‘on the street’ experience.
    1. ^NR5MSU As a US combat vet returning from fighting the Iraq war in 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom (really US invades Iraq), mostly due to a lot to the PTSD from the corruption I experienced (in my unit’s case, mostly from the US contractors standing around like vultures, including possibly setting up many catastrophes so we soldiers would fail so they could replace us), on return I lived in a tent for a few months in a friend’s back yard; but soon he decided he no longer wanted anyone camping in his yard, so
    2. ^NR5MT4 then my girlfriend & I lived from a station wagon for about 2 months around S. Pasadena, including as an experiment in minimalistic living, while I paid all her expenses & enabled her to go continue to go to college as her mother quite literally permanently locked her out her home because I wasn’t Chinese,
    3. ^NR5MTG then at her request I bought what on the outside appeared to just a large van but which, including significant modifications by me, actually was a Roadtrek motorhome (post password NPEEVJ), in which we and then I lived from for many years, parking it in just about any legal parking spot throughout Los Angeles County and some of Orange County (though never longer than about 1 day). The van I have now for sale (post password NPEEVJ), including as…
    4. ^NR5MWM it’s looking like I have found affordable standard apartment housing… though I’m not at all happy about the high subsidies the government is having to pay out to make housing affordable (to the tune of $1400/mo) –even if I’m entitled to them (so I’m not paying for it) and even if that’s competitive market prices, I still see it as a disgusting use of money so resource to be throwing away on a monthly basis– so I’m suspecting I’ll be back to vehicle living soon, including with new & improved versions, and enabling more folks to do the same, as…
    5. ^NR6ODC “Homeless; no, homeFULL!”
      1. ^NR5N4L I do not want to be calling, nor be called, living from a vehicle as ‘homeless’, rather
        
        ^NR5N91 When set up right, I call it homeFULL –as you have your home with you most everywhere you go!
        
        ^NR5NFO Most especially if government especially state & federal can STOP wrongly making living from a vehicle a crime, and we can start further developing appropriate support for this lifestyle.
        
        ^NR5N99 And rather I see it as elegant and appropriately resource efficient, much in the spirit of our too often forgotten original inhabitants of this North America, the American Indian, who also brought his/her home wherever s/he roamed.
        
        ^NR5NE0 Indeed in contrast the resident of the standard home is homeLESS a great deal of the time in the frequent time he must leave his/her home because he can’t bring it with him/her as unfortunately it’s tied down and has no wheels & motor, so then s/he can’t even take a nap during lunchtime at work –well unless his workplace provides nap rooms (which almost none do) and at least not legally even in own car now, thanks to many cities’ bad laws!
      2. ^NR5NQZ And I don’t say ‘living in a vehicle’, I say ‘living from a vehicle’. And most of all I say ‘living!’
        
        ^NR5O0T as while, yes, the vehicle provides you housing, it is NOT your house. Rather it is just a portable bed and transporter for you & your stuff. Rather, your home is the world! And all the world is your backyard!
        
        ^NR5O39 Example: have you ever put your romance to sleep in your bed overlooking the rolling waves & sunset on the beach, and then, without her ever even lifting the covers, quietly arrange to have her wake up amidst the smell of pine cones & birds singing in the beautiful forested mountains? I have. That’s homeFULL! –Try that with standard glued-down housing.
      3. ^NR6OS5 So my OCRegister probably didn’t know how incredibly they really spoke the truth when they wrote ‘the bill, AB718, is a point of contention that reflects starkly different worldviews’.
        
        ^NR6PBZ So the real question now is, Which worldview are you going to subscribe to?
        
        ^NR6PCE Well I for one am ‘Send these, the HOMELESS, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!’, I’m with that special lady, that statue of liberty, who beacons the world for humility, anti-opulence, and/so actual freedom.
        
        ^NR6PCX So, as long as I’m legally located, how I house myself, where I lay my head at night, is nobody’s damn business!
      4. ^NRGLEY: section history additional in start-order:
        
        ^NRGLFJ: proofreader Glyph replies: What about “homeplus living” instead of “homefull” as the opposite of “homeless”? i.e., “My home as a portable add-on. It’s a ‘plus’ — like a turtle’s shell. I live a homeplus lifestyle.” Homeless? No, HomePLUS! What do you think?
        
        ^NRGLJ6: Destiny replies: Thanks fo the thought. ‘homeplus’ is a possiblity which could work but I find ‘homefull better as:
        
        ^NRGLP9: as ‘full’ is stronger than ‘plus’ and appropriately as now your home is full because ‘your backyard is the whole world’
        
        ^NRGLPX: ‘full’ gets in the deserved counter dig that normal standard homeownership is a bit empty in comparison (along the lines of ‘no, the meek shall inherit the earth’
        
        ^NRGLSC: and, a small point, echos of the latest posive modern trend to be mindful
        
        ^NRGMB6: proofreader Glyph replies to NR5O39: Very nice, well said.
        
        ^NRGMHW:proofreader Glyph replies to NR6PCE: Again, well-written — “beacon” can be used as a verb “To serve as a guide” but it’s an unusual use and here you create a poetic double concept in the mind since the statue’s torch (or beacon) is her most outstanding feature. Nice work!
        
        ^NRGO0M: Destiny replies: Thanks. 🙂 Yep, when I wrote it, I was thinking of the torch like a lightouse beacon.
4. ^NR5MIQ So, I’ve very much lived in all the various housings in question. And I very much agree with this bill –now, and for a lifetime!
5. ^NR5Q97 complete general background on me.
^NR5QBG “success of this”
1. ^NR5QBT TBA later when know.

^NR5QCA **“post edits overall history table**, by increasing start-time”
“entry ID”	“action”	“why”	“word cnt”	“ver #”	“s#”	“date (typ fr earliest ID)”

^NR4KP8 ‘{post.status.snapshot: date ’20150707Tue0906pst‘; after ID’ minutes 0~‘; revision ’1‘; words ’205‘; version ’0‘; as ’want to speak up in support of AB718‘, do ’“now {via “Copy to a new draft”, so of {then latest modified post to get a reasonable template, so http://1.JotHere.com/4805#NQZTAB}, so of then its latest saved version, so with last entry “NQZVLF”} created {this here post, so” http://1.JotHere.com/4812#NR4KV9 “} then cut {all its content not to be reused here, so the content just applying to the template, so all the posts’ fully stated points including their KCGUIDs}.”‘}’. ^NR4L8K adding initial content thru NR5H8V ^NR5HJF ‘{post.status.snapshot: date ’20150707Tue2054pst‘; after ID’ minutes 0~‘; revision ’1‘; words ’>>205‘; version ’0.1‘; as ’>500 words added so overdue for a save‘, do ’Save Draft then continue editing‘}’. ^NR62PX complete draft 1 except now: spellcheck & {update IDs to latest format: ~239 replacements} ^NR6GJK got ‘The backup of this post in your browser is different from the version below. Restore the backup.’; did, getting ‘Post restored successfully. Undo.’; this may have started a new revision..; check links: many checked (wd check all but tired); some additions; spellcheck & {update IDs to latest format: 254~replacements} ^NR6UDH: ‘{post.status.snapshot: date ’20150708Wed1429pst‘; after ID’ minutes 0~‘; revision ’2‘; words ’6988‘; version ’0.3‘; as ’1st draft ready for friend editor’s review‘, do ’Save Draft then to do those fixes‘}’. ^NRCFK5: ‘{post.status.snapshot: date ’20150711Sat1420pst‘; after ID’ minutes -40~‘; revision ’6‘; words ’6950~‘; version ’0.4‘; as ’proofing now needed‘, do ’glyph does proofing‘}’. ^NRE4W7: Proofreader Glyph says to the author: ^NRGMAJ: You have given this matter a great deal of thought and clearly your views are deeply-held. Some of the writing is powerful. ^NRGMAT: It’s a shame that it’s is presented in the outline format you so uncompromisingly favor because the format will keep many from appreciating what you have written. ^NRGMB0: You consistently misspell “lose” (rhymes with “booze”) which means “be deprived of or cease to have or retain (something)” as “loose” (rhymes with “goose”) which means “not firmly or tightly fixed in place; detached or able to be detached” — you need to correct this frequent error for your own good as I won’t always be there to catch it. ^NRGMBC: Another mistake you make frequently enough for me to point it out so you can correct it. Watch for leaving out the apostrophe when you mean “it is”. ^NRGMBJ: replace ‘tost’ with ‘tossed’ as I see that the poem is quoted with both spellings, but prefer not to let the reader wonder if you made a mistake. ^NRGMBO: I made about 15 small typo-like corrections using your ‘[from>to>>comment–speaker]’ notation invention ^NRE57G: ‘{post.status.snapshot: date ’20150712Sun1307pst‘; after ID’ minutes -1‘; revision ’6‘; words ’7281‘; version ’0.5‘; as ’completed my proofing‘, do ’Save Draft then stop my editing‘}’. ^NRE5JN: ‘{post.status.snapshot: date ’20150712Sun1318pst‘; after ID’ minutes -3‘; revision ’8‘; words ’7327‘; version ’0.6‘; as ’that last save failed; instead got (so did) quote(Post restored to revision from July 11, 2015 @ 22:13:09 [Autosave]) then quote(Post restored successfully. Undo.)‘, do ’Save Draft then stop my editing‘}’. ^NREQ2E: ‘{post.status.snapshot: date ’20150712Sun2028pst‘; after ID’ minutes -1‘; revision ’9‘; words ’7368‘; version ’0.6‘; as ’for me Destiny to incorporate those edits plus further improvements‘, do ’start editing‘}’. ^NRFU6V: computer did BSOD, so now on reload got ‘The backup of this post in your browser is different from the version below. Restore the backup. ’; this was actually a data loss, loosing point NREZNS, so click ‘Post restored successfully. Undo. ’; still ‘Revisions: 9 ’ ^NRGPVR: just got a ‘He’s dead, Jim!’ then on Refresh ‘The backup of this post in your browser is different from the version below. Restore the backup. ’ which was a few seconds newer; now ‘revision 10’ ^NRGVB1: point ‘^NR4L9A To individuals who have same sentiments as expressed here and want to express them via ideas & content originating here but do not want to fully reveal the source (here) solely for reasonable reasons but will not mis-claim nor mislead on the source nor sentiments, the content owner is open to granting that use and has granted it to a few individuals.’ is a mouth/mind-ful and {didn’t seem like it was going to get used especially given this post’s necessary length (making it difficult to capture much of it in short quote) plus notably its resonable recommedation to directly refer to here} so replaced that point with NRGVDI. ^NSDQLO: ‘{post.status.snapshot: date ’20150731Fri1825pst‘; after ID’ minutes -1‘; revision ’9‘; words ’10131‘; version ’1.0‘; as ’since last point here, so ~18 days, this post is still unpublished but no further editing has been done and now I forget what editing remains other than it was almost thru and new post /4843#NSCCLD makes several not key but useful references to this post, so‘, do ’publish #1‘}’.
						0

JotHere.com –Got a thought? Jot it Here!™

post NR4KV9 in STRONG SUPPORT-of/YES-ON {California bill AB-718: ‘prohibit [government] from prohibiting or otherwise [penalizing], or removing or impounding a motor vehicle [for], ..sleeping or resting in a lawfully parked motor vehicle.’}

‘post NR4KV9 in STRONG SUPPORT-of/YES-ON {California bill AB-718: ‘prohibit [government] from prohibiting or otherwise [penalizing], or removing or impounding a motor vehicle [for], ..sleeping or resting in a lawfully parked motor vehicle.’}’

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

January 2019
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Sep
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31