Texas Bill 987 ---- To be voted on soon

[bill8t1vette]

Wonder how the truck stops will fair, no "overnight camping'........

truck stops are privately owned

[Jay Pat]

I found this article and it does not mention rv's or private property.
It does mention tents, tarps sleeping bags and other items on public property.
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87...f/SB00987I.pdf

[cpe111]

They won't eliminate or solve the homeless problem with this bill - they will just criminalize it.

As more RV'ers take to the roads, places where you can stop to rest overnight while traveling are becoming harder to find. Its a shame these bills do not provide incentives for increasing legal overnight stay and camping slots.

The Bill could be construed to mean an RV .... Shelter is defined as :

:"Shelter" includes a tent, tarpaulin, lean-to, sleeping bag, bedroll, blankets, or any form of shelter, other than clothing, designed to protect a person from weather conditions that threaten personal health and safety."

I can see "any form of shelter" being applied to an RV or camper or even an automobile.

[ToeJam]

Same in PDX. The homelessness is pervasive! It used to be such a beautiful city. So sad.

[ToeJam]

Agree with FreightFlyer.
An above post mentioned they were given shelters with all amenities, but moved out.
Not sure what can be done.
Maybe we move them to all the vacant schools the teachers don’t want to teach from...electricity, clean water-hot & cold!, bathrooms galore, functional kitchen, huge gymnasium...what more could you ask for?!!?
They’d be out inside if a week!

[Beringc]

The bill will probably only affect legal RV’ers.

There are plenty of laws on the books already that deal with trespass issues or people being where they shouldn’t be. The problem is the law will not be enforced against the target audience (homeless).

If a law enforcement officer contacts a person in a parking lot and there is an ordinance or whatever that makes it illegal, that officer now has to store all the persons belongings, including the vehicle and all its contents, take them to jail, etc etc. Sure they can just “leave” but that does nothing.

It is a frustrating problem for everyone. People talk about criminalizing homelessness, but if you look at the criminal activity associated with homelessness, possession of stolen property, theft, etc and address that you start to see they actually have a free pass. If I’m riding a stolen bicycle, I’ll go to jail. If I go in to a homeless camp and see 10 stolen bikes nothing happens. Same with this ordinance proposal. I park in a Walmart in TX, I get a ticket. If I say I’m homeless I will most likely be told to move along down the road.

[schoening]

truck stops are privately owned

what is the difference betwix a "privately owned" truck stop and Wallyworld? Both open to the public.

[Linndoren]

This is what I found so far. It appears to only be for tents and makeshift shelters on public property.
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to prohibitions on camping in a public place; creating a
criminal offense.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 48, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Section 48.05 to read as follows:
Sec. 48.05. PROHIBITED CAMPING. (a) In this section:
(1) "Camp" means to reside temporarily in a place,
with shelter.
(2) "Shelter" includes a tent, tarpaulin, lean-to,
sleeping bag, bedroll, blankets, or any form of shelter, other than
clothing, designed to protect a person from weather conditions that
threaten personal health and safety.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally
or knowingly camps in a public place without the consent of the
officer or agency having the legal duty or authority to manage the
public place.

[GaryS1964]

More often than not, it's not bad life choices, it's mental illness. We stopped treating that, and homelessness is their next stop.

Anyway, solving it is pretty straightforward. Give them a room to live in and food stamps. Doesn't have to be big, fancy, special, or whatever. Completely forget about any sort of moral hazard. Once these people have a permanent address, they are easy to find so social workers can keep them on their meds. They may not become a net productive citizen, but we can reduce the cost. Currently runs about 35K per year per person on average to deal with homelessness the way we do now. Giving them a place to live and welfare to survive on, plus meds, runs about half that.

Salt Lake City actually did this for a while, with great results.

When you pencil it out on paper it seems like a good idea. However when you implement it and discover that over a relatively short period of time the homeless population you are serving has doubled or tripled it's doesn't work. Just like there are currently people who won't go back to work because they make more on unemployment there are those that will decide they would rather live in homeless housing than work even though they are fully capable. Then there are the homeless in other cities who hear about the "free" housing and food stamps and decide to move so they can get those benefits. Do a little research and you will find real world examples of communities that tried this or a similar approach and were forced to abandoned it because the cost became prohibitive. You can start by looking at the results of some welfare reform that was tried. When the welfare ran out many recipients actually went to work.

[alkbch]

When you pencil it out on paper it seems like a good idea. However when you implement it and discover that over a relatively short period of time the homeless population you are serving has doubled or tripled it's doesn't work. Just like there are currently people who won't go back to work because they make more on unemployment there are those that will decide they would rather live in homeless housing than work even though they are fully capable. Then there are the homeless in other cities who hear about the "free" housing and food stamps and decide to move so they can get those benefits. Do a little research and you will find real world examples of communities that tried this or a similar approach and were forced to abandoned it because the cost became prohibitive. You can start by looking at the results of some welfare reform that was tried. When the welfare ran out many recipients actually went to work.

That's a fair point, however how do you suggest we as a society deal with the large amount of future unemployed in the coming decades due to the replacement of millions of jobs by AI and automation? If we do not come up with some kind of welfare program (maybe by taxing the robots?), then there simply won't be enough jobs for people to keep a roof above their heads...