Red Mosquito

Have a house or go to jail, you shitheads.

B wrote:Have a house or go to jail, you shitheads.

The status quo is you have a human right to fill public spaces with mountains of refuse, so I dunno, maybe that is preferable.

tragabigzanda wrote:I am pleased with the homeless encampment ruling. Not because I'm against the homeless, just because I believe in local control.

I have concerns about living through a scenario where the cost of housing is rising, millions of jobs are on the cusp of disappearing, and the law says that communities can outlaw sleeping in a public space while also having no obligation to provide shelter space congruent to the size of their homeless population.

But this is maybe the third most consequential ruling from this week.

tragabigzanda wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

B wrote:Have a house or go to jail, you shitheads.

The status quo is you have a human right to fill public spaces with mountains of refuse, so I dunno, maybe that is preferable.

B, if you want to allow RVs, tents, and piles of trash in your neighborhood, I believe this ruling still allows you to do that via your city governance.

RVs, tents, and piles of trash or one bus with 2 people in it?

My neighbor appears to run a used car lot out of his driveway that is somehow immune from our HOA covenants. I'm not sure that a stray RV is worse.

tragabigzanda wrote:Sorry I got on a roll and forgot: Your neighbor’s driveway is private property, and your HOA is a private organization that you elect to engage with. So some key differences between that situation and mine. I’ve got a guy a few houses down who dresses his hunting kills in the garage and blood runs out into the driveway. I could pester the HOA all day but I’m not sure I’d have a leg to stand on.

Get that driveway declared a navigable waterway and you're in business.

simple schoolboy wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Sorry I got on a roll and forgot: Your neighbor’s driveway is private property, and your HOA is a private organization that you elect to engage with. So some key differences between that situation and mine. I’ve got a guy a few houses down who dresses his hunting kills in the garage and blood runs out into the driveway. I could pester the HOA all day but I’m not sure I’d have a leg to stand on.

Get that driveway declared a navigable waterway and you're in business.

6/10

You should have made the “rivers of blood” joke slightly more clear

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Sorry I got on a roll and forgot: Your neighbor’s driveway is private property, and your HOA is a private organization that you elect to engage with. So some key differences between that situation and mine. I’ve got a guy a few houses down who dresses his hunting kills in the garage and blood runs out into the driveway. I could pester the HOA all day but I’m not sure I’d have a leg to stand on.

Get that driveway declared a navigable waterway and you're in business.

6/10

You should have made the “rivers of blood” joke slightly more clear

Do you have me confused with Enoch Powell?

With all this excitement about Chevron deference, some people might forget that title 33 is still in effect and the feds still have significant ability to regulate what is discharged into navigable waters.

What is Chevron anyway? Some folks are claiming it means the end of consumer protection rules and other say it prevents unconstitutional expansion of federal law.

tragabigzanda wrote:B, I’m sure you’re a good guy and a good hang — you seem to have a good sense of humor about yourself and you shoulder the admin weight of RM, which definitely counts for something.

Assume everything you said is a symptom of me not taking my online debates very seriously and not very reflective of my actual, share-with-friends opinions.

But I still think there are better solutions than criminalizing the homeless.

Bi_3 wrote:What is Chevron anyway? Some folks are claiming it means the end of consumer protection rules and other say it prevents unconstitutional expansion of federal law.

That's a trap.

Bi_3 wrote:What is Chevron anyway? Some folks are claiming it means the end of consumer protection rules and other say it prevents unconstitutional expansion of federal law.

If a regulatory rule is ambiguous, the relevant department gets to interpret it as it sees fit.

Basically the legislature can't divest its powers to the executive and have them come up with rules that (yesterday's ruling) evade judicial review or be interpreted by themselves when unclear (Chevron).

Proggles hated Chevron during the Bush admin when the EPA would interpret things to the benefit of companies (or whoever). It's all kind of window dressing by not revisiting Wickard v Filburn and cutting the feds back to their proper (very limited) role.

CFPB has other issues relating to its possibly unconstitutionally structure., maybe next on the chopping block.