Home / #Solutions / Homeless Build Drug-Free Camp to Help Others Get Sober, Cops Promptly Tear it Down

Homeless Build Drug-Free Camp to Help Others Get Sober, Cops Promptly Tear it Down

Oakland, CA — Known as ‘The Promised Land,’ a group of homeless people in Oakland sought to improve their situation by creating a camp that would foster sobriety and help people to get jobs. However, because the government constantly wages war on the people’s right to exist, this unique and inspiring place is no more.

The Promised Land, also known as The Village, was a small camp under multiple layers of highway in a small and underused city park. Multiple homeless camps in Oakland, California are rife with heroin abuse and crime. However, the people who created this one aimed to be different.

The camp’s organizer, Needa Bee, explained to CBS San Francisco that while only 16 people lived there, they were providing services to hundreds of other homeless people a week.

Bee was able to obtain portable toilets, hand washing stations, a hot shower, and even offered up basic medical care and food. According to Bee, the camp had strict rules against drinking and drug use in an effort to help others get sober to get jobs. The homeless members of the camp had even begun cultivating gardens to feed themselves.

But on Thursday, all that amazing progress came to a grinding and crushing halt.

As CBS San Francisco reports, residents were abruptly awakened Thursday morning by dozens of police officers and public works employees who told them to leave with what they could and loaded what was left into garbage trucks. One person was arrested attempting to stop the process.

READ MORE:  Cop Admits He Exchanged Racist Texts With Man Who Shot Up BLM Protest

During the week prior, city inspectors came through and cited the camp on 18 health and safety violations. Even their gardens were considered violations and their entire presence in the park — without a permit — was declared a “public nuisance,” city spokeswoman Karen Boyd said.

“This was a solution and it was viable. … The people of Oakland believed in it,” said Bee. “Now all those folks are going right back onto the streets.”

“I’m disgusted by the mayor and disgusted by the administrator,” she said. “We actually did something that they were unable to do.”

To add insult to destruction, several other homeless camps in the area remained untouched during Thursday’s crackdown — in spite of rampant  and widespread drug use and piles of trash.

As SF Gate reports:

Clearing the encampment at 36th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way was a striking change from how city staffers have approached other camps, including a line of tents and waste just outside the park — which they left untouched during Thursday morning’s shutdown — or another camp six blocks away, which Oakland leaders chose for the inaugural “Compassionate Communities” program.

At that encampment, at 35th and Magnolia streets, city crews added portable toilets, trash bins and needle containers, then hosed down the sidewalks and left. With the deployment of counselors and other services, the idea is to get everyone into housing by March 31, then replicate the program at other sites.

This camp was specifically targeted because they were inviting people in to help them.

READ MORE:  SHOCK VIDEO: Cop Upholds Constitution, Prevents Detained Citizens from Being Searched & Accosted

“There’s a difference between people living in tents, versus setting up an intentional, unsanctioned encampment,” Boyd said. “They were inviting and recruiting people to bring them into a park without the adequate infrastructure.”

Apparently, the large piles of trash, rampant heroin use, and unsanitary conditions at the other camps is considered ‘adequate infrastructure.’

During its brief but profound existence, there was not a single incident at the Village — yet they were still shut down. They even provided their own security at night to protect those who sought sanctuary.

“Before, it was so drug infested, you couldn’t even walk through here late at night,” Majid Ahmed, 44, said as he packed up his belongings at the camp, according to SF Gate. “Since we moved here, there has been zero crime and every one of us has got off drugs.”

But no more.

Daniel Weaver, a resident in “the promised land,” said he has a part-time job but remains homeless. And, now that the Village has been torn down and thrown away, the likelihood of him keeping that job has greatly diminished.

“I need to be able to brush my teeth and take a shower and get to work. If I’m going to get my act together, I need a place,” he said.

A 60-year-old homeless woman, Nancy Mitchell was living on the street at one of the nearby ‘city-sanctioned’ camps with heroin use and trash. However, she explained to SF Gate that she came to the Village one day to get a cup of coffee and a plate of food, and decided to stay. Volunteers at the Village grabbed their dollies and helped move her in.

READ MORE:  Woman Spends Months In Jail For Having Loud Sex In Her Apartment

“It was welcoming,” she said. “I’ve never seen so much love in that park.”

  • The Cat’s Vagina

    “There’s a difference between people living in tents, versus setting up an intentional, unsanctioned encampment,” Boyd said. “They were inviting and recruiting people to bring them into a park without the adequate infrastructure.”

    Fuck that bullshit excuse! The people they were “inviting and recruiting” weren’t abandoning their safe, happy lives in the suburbs to live in a homeless camp “without the adequate infrastructure.”

    • raz-0

      OK, but is shanty town now your bar for a habitable dwelling? Because if you like rules that make landlords fix shit, you might find they are incompatible with permitting shanty towns to be an organized thing that lets people move in and live there.

      Mandating a minimum standard for the welfare of the general public doesn’t come without costs, this is one of them.

      • The Cat’s Vagina

        In order to fairly mandate a “minimum standard for the welfare of the general public,” one has to be willing to actually PROVIDE that standard for those who can’t afford it. Otherwise, you’re just cruelly fucking with poor people for no better reason than “fuck the poor – if they were worth caring about, they wouldn’t be poor.”

        • user132132

          Ya just pass a law that’ll fix everything

        • raz-0

          Life’s not fair, and you are definitely NOT just cruely fucking with poor people. I guarantee you in general (probably not in the bay area at this point), that there are a whole mess of slightly less poor people than in that park who are living in housing where the person who owns it would take every opportunity to fuck them over that weakening those laws would provide. Often that housing is government subsidized.

          To get rid of that, you have to eliminate that law, or you go down the very dangerous path of saying this law only applies to some people. Or you go down the path of the authorities just ignore the law being broken and you go ok, but that’s for the good this time. Then you get to deal with it being institutionalized and used for ill as well.

          Don’t get me wrong, I agree with your sentiment. People were trying to help themselves and someone came along and ruined it. Which sucks. I’m just saying it’s not a black and white and 2 dimensional as you like to paint it.

          Say we did provide services and provided the standard for those who can’t afford it, but the homeless people said fuck it, I’m not following your rules, but would have stayed at a place like this. Because while I can’t say that the combination is a thing that genuinely existed, I can say the first half where the service is there but they say fuck it I’m living by my rules is very real. I have first hand experience navigating those waters with a family member multiple times before his behavior was the death of him.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            You’re going to an awful lot of effort to rationalize something that’s pretty objectively horrifying. I’m not buying it!

          • Susan M.

            No, in this case a lot of what raz-0 said is true. I was homeless for a while several years ago and many of the MI and veterans said they couldn’t stand the rules that were being enforced on them at the housing facilities, and they would rather live under a bridge than put up with it. I have to say I agree. The staff at those facilities are rude and arrogant. They act as though they are the “citizens” (because they ‘have a job’) and the clients are the “second-class citizens”. The management does nothing to enforce their mission statement of “providing respectful and courteous service to all”. You have to experience it to believe it. You should dress from a thrift store and go there, like an investigative journalist, to see what really goes on there.

          • Lakeshia Davis

            Like it or not, the homeless are 2nd class as long as they are homeless, and most are that way by their own choices, whether it is substance abuse, being so stupid as to marry an abusive loser in the first place, or being greedy and investing in unsound investments. Sure, some get on the streets due to illness, job loss, or medical bills, and I’m not faulting them.

            And yes, I know what it is like to be homeless.

          • Susan M.

            That is called “blaming the victim”. It is a lot easier than confronting the institutionalized inequality that creates the homeless.

      • Zeconte

        So, just to make sure I understand you properly, one of the costs of mandating a minimum standard for the welfare of the general public is forcing homeless people to live in encampments littered with trash and drugs, because we can’t have homeless encampments that don’t have those things?

        Am I to understand that correctly? As far as you’re concerned, you either meet the “minimum standard for welfare” or you are forced to live without any standards at all, because anything in between is just unacceptable? How, exactly, do you mandate a minimum standard for welfare without doing something about people living in homeless encampments riddled with trash and drugs, and further, how do you do nothing about that, but then act against the people who do try to do something about it? Doesn’t exactly seem justifiable or defensible in any way, shape or form if you ask me.

        • raz-0

          No I’m saying if you put up a shanty town that doesn’t meet up with certificate of occupancy needs, you either a) make it easier for slum lords to fuck over slightly less poor people or b) legitmize the government picking and choosing to obey laws, which tends towards abuse rather than benevolence.

          What we have is a law that tears down shanty towns for being a hazard to public health regardless of the presence of drugs. We have zoning laws that keep people from building a cadmium refinery next to a school. Those same zoning laws also mean you get rules about building shanty towns in public spaces zoned to be a park.

          The fact that there aren’t effective services does not mean that housing suddenly shouldn’t meet set standards for human occupancy. It means that services are deficient and should be addressed by fixing that, not undermining rules that are put in place for different matters of public welfare. From experience I know you can build all sorts of things with disregard for code if they are not permanent structures and not meant to be habitable. You REALLY don’t want those guidelines to be accepted as human habitable and then hand that ruling over to slumlords with apartment buildings full of poor people which they maintain to the barest minimum letter of the law. So you let a shanty town in the park because public spaces. We’ll ignore the curfew. Should we then let only them in after dark? What about those guys over there who don’t look homeless. Do they have to vacate at dark? Do we let everyone stay? Do we let everyone stay until someone starts stabbing homeless people, or setting them on fire, and then how do you pick who gets to stay after dark? Who pays for the police overtime? The folks who built shelter in the park but pay no property taxes to support public services?

          As for looking the other way because they are trying to do good, does the state get a pass if everyone in the shanty town dies from a fire? Asking for unwritten exceptions seems odd in this venue of a web site dedicated to saying cops and politicians should have to abide by the law like we do.

          It’s not a simple problem regardless of people clearly trying to do good. Either the law is the law or it’s not. You can advocate for changing it, but you need to have a plan. If a place like this is getting rousted, but a drug riddles shanty town two block over isn’t that’s wrong too, and government should be taken to task for enforcing the law selectively and stupidly.

          • Susan M.

            You talk about fixing the services to the homeless. A) How? It’s easy to sit at your keyboard and say, “Fix this” and “Fix that”, but as The Cat’s Vagina has said, unless you PROVIDE for those people, a “fix” isn’t going to work; and B) What is your time frame for “fixing” the various problems we have in this society (including classism, which we never admit exists, because we’re supposed to be a “democracy”)? While you think about it, those people are sitting out in the cold and rain, hoping to get enough to eat.

          • raz-0

            It’s a hard problem. That’s kind of my point. Providing for the welfare of everyone is a complex task.

            I could state what needs fixing, but it’d just be a list of what personally bothers me most and not necessarily right.

            I think in general poor people need a functioning support network. Most assistance given doesn’t really improve that. Some of it directly undermines it. Shelters are basically no men allowed, so if you have an intact family unit, you either break that up or you live on the street. Section 8 housing is less bad but still biased toward single mothers. Not that they don’t need help, but once again you can take an intact family unit that has more people to bear the burden and you penalize them and reduce their support network under the assumption the man is always a problem.

            We might want to not undermine what support network exists.

            Then there’s thing like child care. It’s disturbingly expensive. Subsidies sound great. You have them and people say see, support provided. Except that you can’t replace someone being involved and giving a shit about a kid on a regular basis. Paying for child care doesn’t do much for that if the parent(s) are working themselves to death to provide necessities.

            I honestly don’t know if providing a functional support network that can survive the natural per capita rate of shitty people on the recipient end or the providing end is actually solvable. They may be screwed by the rotten apples.

            Keeping people fed is more tractable, but actually giving people the tools to climb out of poverty is much, much harder.

          • Susan M.

            Every time someone uses the word “complex”, I know they’ve been listening to the government too much. The government always describes any problem they don’t want to touch with a ten-foot pole as being “complex.

            It really isn’t complex. It is easy, as Bernie Sanders said last summer. The government always puts fear in the heart of the people by saying, “But do you want to raise YOUR TAXES to pay for the poor?” They are manipulating you with that line. Federal taxes DON’T FUND SPENDING…strange, but true. Ever since Nixon took the USA off the gold standard in 1971, the country has had a sovereign currency. That means it can make what money it likes, when it likes. That is how it came up with 7.4 BILLION dollars to bail out the crooks at the big banks.

            Look up “Modern Monetary Theory”.

            The government spends what money it like on what it likes. Run by Big Oil, Big Banks, the Arms Industry, and Big Pharma (because they give mega-bucks to campaign funds), that’s what it spends its money on. It doesn’t spend money on healthcare, the poor, the water in Flint, the homeless, poor housing, clean energy, or all the other problems you lump together as “complex” because it doesn’t want to. It’s that simple.

            If we wanted to solve these problems, Congress could pass laws to stop them, and send directions to the Fed to release the money. The Fed would spend the money in a few keystrokes.

            The other problem we need to change in this country is the attitude of the affluent to the poor. This is “class-ism”. We don’t like to admit the problem because we are, in theory, a “democracy”. It is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to see.

            The problem of the attitude to the poor goes back to Queen Elizabeth the First in, oh, 1600 or something like that. That is when she passed the “Poor Laws” making each local parish responsible for its own poor. That is when they built “poorhouses” and made people work on the treadmill until they died from the strain or developed hernias.

            The belief in those days was that every able-bodied man could work if he wanted to. Actually, in some parishes there wasn’t enough work, and in others, they were begging for workers, but Elizabeth passed a law forbidding poor people from moving from their parish to another parish to find work. Huh?

            Those attitudes came over on the Mayflower with the Pilgrims and future waves of immigrants from England. It wasn’t helped by the fact that many poor people, who wanted to get out of England and have a chance at a better life in the Americas, had to sell themselves into indentured servitude to pay for their passage. As indentured servants, they were treated no better than slaves. They were beaten, whipped, raped, and branded if they ran away. If they survived their seven years of servitude, they were here, in the colonies, but poor.

            Also, one way that England sent it unwanted people to America was to have sentences of “transportation” for criminals. They emptied out their prisons that way. (They also “transported” criminals to Australia. That is how Australia was founded. No tools, no housing, no food was provided to the transportees. They were expected to hardscrabble a living out of the bare earth. Some books have been written in Australia about the struggles of the early “settlers”.) Georgia was started as a prison colony, too.

            The well-off Pilgrims and colonists looked down their well-manicured noses at these “vermin”. So the class animosities of old England were transferred to the New World.

            Our attitudes of today are founded on this legacy. Many (not by any means all) programs for the poor are run not much differently than they would have been run in Elizabethan England. There is “them” and there is “us”. I have been poor all of my adult life and I have been homeless. That is how I have come in contact with many of these programs. Some are public programs and some are run privately. Most treat their “clients” as pawns on a chessboard. I can easily understand how many vets, who served honorably, would rather live under a bridge with some dignity than be treated the way they are with programs as they are today.

            The welfare programs don’t kick the man out of the house because they think he’s the problem. Their attitude is exactly that of Elizabeth’s time: if there is an able-bodied man in the house, he should have a job and be supporting the family. The fact that working-class jobs were sent overseas when Bill Clinton signed GATT and there aren’t enough jobs to go around in this country today is irrelevant to them.

            It isn’t enough for Congress to release the funds. John F. Kennedy released mentally ill people from state hospitals that were not much better than medieval prisons, and promised “community-based” programming for them. I read a book by a prominent psychiatrist who agreed that the funds were there. (I believe it was “Surviving Schizophrenia”.) How they spent them was on well-designed clinics for middle-class neurotics–the “worried well”–people essentially like the psychiatrists themselves. Nothing was done for poor or schizophrenic patients. If you didn’t have a family to take care of you and advocate for you, you were sunk. Basically, he admitted that they wasted the money. It was, once again, a class-based system. Affluent doctors would rather treat people like themselves than people who are different

            We have to take a good hard look at ourselves as a society and ask ourselves if we want to continue this class-based practice, or if we want to treat the poor as ourselves. While we are resisting Trump’s ban on Muslims, and insisting on “inclusion” as one of our most deeply-held American values, we might think about including our own poor. Programs for the poor should get off their high horses and treat their clients with dignity.

            I live in America, but as a poor person, I live in a third-world country inside the United States.

          • raz-0

            It’s complex because it is complex. US society has at a minimum 300 million moving parts. It’s complex. You could have a basic income and even if it didn’t make the price of food an other natural resources skyrocket, you couldn’t make it sufficient to absorb the shitty choices of many, many people.

            Money does not work how you think. It also doesn’t work like they claim it does really either. Case in point, we were already decoupled from reality before Nixon and Bretton Woods. It’s why we left the gold standard, we were reevaluating the cash to gold ratio regularly against agreement.

            You can’t just print money. The US comes closest to being able to without consequence because we have a large economy AND we are the defacto reserve currency. If you look at every other country that engaged in quantitative easing, their currency is worth a lot less vs ours than it used to be, and that is because they ended QE later, AND they aren’t a reserve currency. We set most of the QE money on fire, effectively, and we still caused some decent inflation in sectors. Had those sums hit the retail level, it would have been much worse, had we not been the reserve currency, it would have been much worse, and had we not been a huge economy, it would have been much worse.

            Heck the only reason it wasn’t worse is because we could export misery in the form of cheap labor. That only helps so much with food, and not at all with geographically locked services, like medical care and education. You will note those have experienced a shit ton of inflation.

            The tired trope is the concern over a crisis of confidence in treasuries and selling debt. Yeah, people not buying sucks, but we don’t have to worry much about dumping it. The REAL boogie man is people deciding to conduct business in another currency for the big money deals. When the ledger economy (i.e. stuff that never really exits the banking system in any meaningful way, where the money is REALLY printed) starts evaluating in something other than US dollars, we will wind up somewhere between Mexico revaluing the peso and Zimbabwe level fun.

            And free shit for everyone never works out. Venezuela is the latest example. Things are going great there and they HAVE a huge natural resource that is in demand to fund that stuff.

            As for the schizophrenia thing, I lived through a brother with it. There used to be support infrastructure that worked to some degree as far back as the late 80s. It is effectively gone now, and has been for a while. But never was wasn’t how it actually went, at least where I live.

  • Susan M.

    Let’s start a call-in to the Oakland City Council and the Mayor Libby Schaaf: 510-238-3141

  • user132132

    The problem was it is/was a drug free place geared to getting people out of the situation and TPB can’t have that.

    • The Cat’s Vagina

      *googles the abbreviation* The Pirate Bay?

  • If that Kenyan pretty boy (ex-prez) hadn’t sent millions (?billions?) of our tax dollars to our enemy (his master), we could help these people. YES, they are people!!! Some could be veterans, mentally ill, TBI survivors (who had no support system as in family), addicts (yeah, they may have ‘asked for it’, but, they’re there, now and they need help).
    Instead of arming our enemy and spending millions to test shrimp on a treadmill or research why most lesbos are fat, this money should go towards housing the homeless and helping them reverse their situation!!! A man who pulled up to a little store in a Jaguar with $7000.00 dollars on his food stamp card (one dem ‘victims’) should forfeit his ‘benefits’ to these people who REALLY need it!!!

    • The Cat’s Vagina

      You need help. Seriously, this post is just ten pounds of crazy-WRONG in a five pound bag. Most lesbos are fat because most people are fat. YES, they are people!!! Also, nobody pulls up in a Jag with $7000 on a food stamp card. You just pulled that out of your stupid ass.

      • Cool your jets, there, sweetie. I am NOT insulting anyone here ( besides those who determine where the tax money is spent). They REALLY DID DO a study about this. If you think this is more important than helping the homeless, you need to pull it out of your ass! If you’re offended by my use of lesbos, I apologize. This was, IN NO WAY, meant as an insult-just a shorter word-less typing. I did not know that this term was a ‘diss’-totally not intended. I guess I, just, don’t keep up with all of the PC BS.
        No offense intended. People can have sex with who they want (as long as it’s a mutual decision between two adults), as long as they leave me alone regarding this. There was no insult, here. You know, if one is intent on finding negative so they can be the victim, they’ll find it-if it’s present, or not.

        • The Cat’s Vagina

          Yeah, that’s really not where you lost me, but thanks for the apology.

        • Susan M.

          Well, you kind of offended me with your post. I have been on Food Stamps for a long time, and I’ve never seen one of thepeople you describe in a Jaguar “with $7000 in Food Stamps”. In the first place, how would anyone know what he was getting in Food Stamps, if he even existed, except in the minds of people who hate the poor? Secondly, for the last couple of years, I have live on $88 per month in Food Stamps. That’s what real people really get. You try living on $88 for just one month, and see how well you can do. They finally raised my allotment to $121/month, and I feel like I’m rich. You try feeling one adult on $121/month, and get back to me on how it felt.

          • The Cat’s Vagina

            But… but… steak and lobster and junk food, oh my! Won’t someone please think of my tax dollars!

          • I don’t make up things & I’m NOT NOT NOT insulting anyone here! It was in a city in Ohio (I think). A small store owner had refused to serve a man who had the Jag. & the $7000.00. THAT’S HOW I KNOW!!! I don’t, just, invent this stuff so I can engage in ALL OF the intelligent conversation on these sites! Dear ‘miss insulted’, I don’t insult myself-I get $16.00/month in food stamps. Oh gee, I MUST think I’m sooooo much better than people who get food stamps (sarc. & ticked off). OMG, if you people could see beyond looking for a reason to be offended and get the point of my initial post, you just might agree!!!

      • raz-0

        I’ve got section 8 housing next to my home. 2 units. Statistically speaking they are likely receiving food stamps if they qualify for section 8. While I’m sure none of them ever has $7k on SNAP cause that shit just doesn’t work that way. They do have someone living in the house more than is legal who is driving a 2015 mercedes GLK. Which is up there in Jag territory. If that’s a permanent member of the household, then yes they are gaming the system as he clearly has an income, and it is not being included in the assessment of eligibility which it should be if he is an occupant family member. So that shit does happen. The previous occupant of that unit was doing essentially the same thing by the letter of the law. Although it was a single mom and two daughters and the guy was a boyfriend of one of the daughters and didn’t really have a pot to piss in himself. So technically the same. Practically, not the same at all.

        I don’t rat them out because so far they are quiet, don’t appear to be selling drugs, and shovel the walkways like they are supposed to, and for section 8 that’s like hitting the frikin jackpot for able bodied occupants.

        But yes, you will find people who shouldn’t qualify for welfare taking advantage of the system. The situation I described is not that uncommon. Heck, it’s practically SOP for mormon polygamists. One marriage, a bunch of dirt poor single mothers on paper for the other “wives”, family unit in reality is pooling the benefits and using them as income while they might otherwise be disqualified if the true family unit were accurately represented.

        • The Cat’s Vagina

          You seem to have a lot of contempt for poor people. Please shut down whatever device you’re using to read this and go fuck the nearest pumpkin!

          • raz-0

            Nah you do that. I’ve dealt with you civilly you seem to just have the attitude of fuck you I’m.right because feelings.

    • Boba Vette

      Jesus H Christ are you a trumpanzy F&^k up.
      .
      Please prove ANY of this effing bullshit.
      .
      “A man who pulled up to a little store in a Jaguar with $7000.00 dollars on his food stamp card (one dem ‘victims’) should forfeit his ‘benefits’ to these people who REALLY need it!!!”

      • Look it up for yourself! It was in the news. In Ohio, I think. Was, probably between 5-10 yrs. ago.

        • Susan M.

          They ALWAYS put that one person out of millions in the news. You shouldn’t watch mainstream news–it’s all a bunch of propaganda. And that’s a classic example of propaganda for Hating The Poor.

          • billdeserthills

            Well then it should be easy for you to explain away my old buddy. His wife and him were allowed on the food stamp program years ago, since then the wife died, but my bud never bothered to tell anyone. He still gets her share of food stamps and since she died, he has gone into meth addict phase. He buys groceries for people and uses his food stamps, then accepts 20% less in cash as payment for the groceries. Of course he uses the cash to buy meth. So don’t tell me how innocent and pure all them poor, poor folks are

          • Susan M.

            Actually, many studies have shown that poor people on Food Stamps or other programs are more honest than the general population. The greatest source of welfare fraud is doctors padding their medical accounts. I have seen this myself. You always pick out the one person you know out of millions of honest people and hold him/her up as your example. Statistically, that is dishonest, and not true. Open your view wider. If you look, you will see many, many honest people. Most people see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear. Your attitude is one of hatred for the poor.

          • billdeserthills

            Did you know that the ‘see what you wanna see & hear what you wanna hear’ is captured on The Point by Nilsson?
            Why should I hate the poor? Some people who feel guilty for accepting free benefits will attack folks
            for simply speaking their minds. I hope you don’t feel guilty for accepting welfare…

            I signed up for welfare once and I won’t attack you for it

          • Boba Vette

            Yea, you made that up. Its a fake story on breitbart

          • Susan M.

            No, I didn’t. I learned it in my Sociology class at the University of Minnesota, where I was an Honors student while I was a welfare mother.

          • Boba Vette

            And it is a fake story….but you tramazies keep on

          • billdeserthills

            You are a retard, nobody here is talking to you

          • billdeserthills

            I wasn’t talking to you

          • Boba Vette

            And yet your responded! At least you see the error of you alt right ways…criminal

          • billdeserthills

            Bye Bye Fuckface

          • Boba Vette
        • Randal H
          • Thank you, SO MUCH, for posting this. Unless this is a different incidence than the one I stated, I was off on the state & the type of car. The moral of story is the same, though. Again, thank You.

      • Randal H
        • Boba Vette

          You used an opinion piece as fact….figures….Just like voter fraud, death panels and BENGAZIIII nothing the right ever say is actual fact….SMFH idiots

  • Susan M.

    Before you get all excited about “my tax dollars”, Food Stamps, for example is a Federal program, and Federal spending IS NOT FUNDED BY TAXES. That’s right, folks! We have had a sovereign currency since Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971, which means the government can spend what it pleases on what it likes. What it likes is big oil, the military weapons manufacturers, and the banks. That is why the government can come up with TRILLIONS of dollars to bail out the Wall Street banks, and it can’t fix the water crisis in Flint. Congress can pass a law to authorize spending, and the government bank (the Fed) pays it out. Congress, like many people, doesn’t like poor people (like the people in Flint). That’s why it doesn’t “fix” these entirely fixable problems: there is no political will to do so. Look up Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

    • Arthur Wholeflaffers

      Very astute.

  • Robin Hoke

    If they really want this encampment they will find a way to do so legally and find the funding to do so. Oakland, like so many cities, has been looking for ways to help the homeless in such a way that those who are living there are safe, both physically and spiritually. It isn’t an easy thing to do. Laws are set up for people who thriving not those who have stumbled or fallen. It would help a great deal if so many people didn’t feel ashamed of them or think being poor is contagious. The good news is, there are a great many souls out there that will not only help this encampment but will probably improve it. There will be someone who will let them build it on their property and let them do what they need to do.

  • MrRetloc

    How else will the city Fathers/Bitches sell all that Heroin they have stashed in their garage? They cannot have all those sober people living in semi-decent housing. Keep them high and in tents.