Judge Helps Homeless Panhandle

Posted by Jack

There is an excellent video crafted by the Sacramento Bee on the website noted below.  It shows the problem posed by panhandling in a fair and honest way.



This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Judge Helps Homeless Panhandle

  1. Libby says:

    Sorry, Jack. Sitting on the sidewalk with your sign is NOT aggressive panhandling. Sacto’s ordinance is badly written, unconstitutional, and they will just have to re-write the thing so that it is not.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Libby… The sidewalk sitters are not the only ones who panhandle. Didn’t you watch the video? It shows some of them obstructing traffic. We had a couple of nice everyday kind of folks just trying to go the grocery store, when they were approached by a bum in the parking lot and asked for their spare change. When they declined, they were stabbed in the stomach. One victim was a man and another was an older female, two separate dates and places. The stabbing panhandler was never caught, maybe he is working your neighborhood now?

      • Libby says:

        If the cops had restricted there arrests to actively obstructive so-and-so’s, the ACLU would not have a case.

        P.S.: It was already illegal to stab somebody in the stomach.

    • Tina says:

      “Sacto’s ordinance is badly written, unconstitutional…”

      How so?

      • Libby says:

        Merely asking passersby is not “aggressive”, nor is being within “so many feet” of a door or driveway. As written, the ordinance unconstitutionally restricts a person right to speech and assembly.

        “Obstructing” a door or driveway … that’s better. Following folk down the sidewalk, that’s a slam-dunk.

        As it is, some over-zealous police officers are costing the City of Sacramento big-time.

        • Tina says:


          Sounds like an easy fix is possible and in order.

          But that doesn’t change the fact that many of them are aggressive.

          Loitering, disrupting the path of others, and making a nuisance of yourself is now a speech and assembly issue?

          Somehow I doubt that’s what the Founders had in mind.

          But you liberals love to invent definitions and make things up as you go along. Just can’t help yourselves.

          John Stossel did a piece on freeloaders that’s pretty interesting. It’s a lifestyle…a defiant lifestyle. Why should they work when a sucker every other minute will hand them few bucks. Tax free income given freely from do-gooders that just enable their bad habits.

  2. Harold says:

    Just some light reading about the effects of homeless panhandlers in Libby land of San Fran-crap-o.
    I can only imagine she is so accustom to living in sty like surroundings, Libby see’s nothing wrong with it taking place in other cities.

    So now you can begin to understand Pelosi, Feinstein, Harris see no problem with squatting on America in general, as they are poop-a-gating it in their own districts.

    The bay area, a Throne build for those queens….yea I know a crappy pun




    • Libby says:

      Well, I do think you over-react. The City of Berkeley is currently plagued with a band of 30 or 40 RVs. They’re being chased here and there, hither and yon. They were happily camped down at the bay, across from the Doubletree. But the Doubletree crabbed: “we pitch $8M into Berkeley’s coffers every year, use some of it to get these people out of here!”

      But what do you do with a band of 40 RVs full of people who cannot afford to rent in Berkeley, but will not leave? Deport them?

      I know you’d like to, but it’s not an option.

    • Tina says:

      Harold the once beautiful city by the bay is also losing revenue from conferences that are bailing out due to street conditions.

      The left seems to shrink from the notion of holding citizens to higher standards…or any standard at all.

  3. Libby says:

    “The bay area, a Throne build for those queens….yea I know a crappy pun ….”

    Homophobic too. Gross, Harold. Really Gross. I don’t suppose you’d be willing to consider the matter seriously? Consider the fact that a sizeable portion of San Francisco’s homeless have been on the streets for 10 … 20 years. A sizeable portion of those are mentally impaired. What do you suppose 20 years on the street does to a person’s notions of personal hygiene? … especially if that person is not all there to begin with.

    You’re a great one for complaining, Harold, and for homophobic slurs, but none of this is very helpful.

    • Tina says:

      “… a sizeable portion of San Francisco’s homeless have been on the streets for 10 … 20 years. A sizeable portion of those are mentally impaired.”

      And those miracle working lefties haven’t done anything that would solve the problem…only things that have made it much worse.

      I would think a city with so many wealthy citizens would build a large mental health facility and humanely force them off the streets for their own good.

    • Harold says:

      I must have touched another one of those Liberal nerves, you know the “don’t let the facts will prevail edgy” one . LOL

      Normally I ignore post like this, however it is not a complaint, if you want to discuss complaints that offer no solutions, try re-reading your BS prior to posting it.

      And as to your laughable misplaced label of homophobic,
      (typical liberal tactic of slurring someone when you got nothing)
      how is it that you didn’t include your own Bay area mayor in that category, or is it because you need to misdirect and avoid her liberal lefty alliance even though it was the city’s mayor who brought up the subject to begin with. Accept the fact your ideology is creating these problems

      You may be accepting of San Fran’s sh%tuation, but when does refusing to walk on the crap filled streets, born of your liberal ideology, make one a homophobic, no it doesn’t.

      However your use of the slur does indicate it is just another pointless remark coming from you who regularly in their posts show a real propensity of a Paranoid Personality Disorder toward others.

      • Libby says:

        “a Throne build for those queens….”

        So, Harold, tell us what you really meant? (But don’t go to your Prezzy for advice … he’s really lousy at this.)

        • Harold says:

          Too bad you have to spend most of your time looking down at things, especially when you travel your “Brown and yellow brick” roads of filth. Needles and filth and illegals, oh my, that is about all your sanctuary city has to offer, cause it surely isn’t a sanitary city.

          What I mean you have to ask?, try looking up for a change and reading the paragraph above “a Throne build for those queens….” and put the two of them together. sigh!

          Or where you just attempting another liberal spin to discredit the obvious.

  4. Post Scripts says:

    Me and a few hundred of my closest friends would like to live in Beverly Hills, but we can’t because we don’t have enough money. Why is it then that the homeless in San Francisco and Berkeley feel it’s their “right” to live there when they can’t afford it? Why are they entitled to defecate like animals wherever they please, throw up a tent wherever? And how does this impact the rights of those who own property and pay taxes? Their rights end when they encroach on the rights of others. Simple.

    Libby, you are wringing your hands over what to do about this mess when its so obviously fixable.

    Clearly the property owners have a right to be there, but the bums do not. Maybe we can’t deport them, but they are free to go elsewhere and they must go, because they can’t stay here. They all came from somewhere else, so let them go back to wherever they started from, then when they can afford to move and do it correctly… fine. But, until then we frown upon squatters and they can’t do it just because they want to do it.

    They have no “right” to stay in expensive areas as squatters. If they do, they should have an expectation of arrest and incarceration for trespass, illegal camping, littering and a whole host of other city code misdemeanors. Simple.

    Liberals always try to make easy… hard.

    • Peggy says:

      It’s the rich liberals who can afford to hire private security, put up walls and electronic gates who are destroying communities for those who can’t afford to protect themselves and their property in the same way. We’re all left to deal with they mess they created.

      Remember when George Clooney moved his family back to his mansion in LA because he couldn’t spend enough money to still guarantee their safety? Even getting the local gov’t in Italy to charge trespassers with a huge fine for even being near his place didn’t work. Love when the liberals who created this mess are forced to deal with in, even if it’s just in a small way that only cost them a couple of million.

      “Clooney owns several homes throughout the world, including a massive estate in Lake Como, Italy. The actor has previously taken extensive security measures to keep his home in Italy private, and in 2015, local mayor Robert Pozzi reportedly imposed a $600 fine on anyone found trespassing near the actor’s property.”

    • Libby says:

      “Why is it then that the homeless in San Francisco and Berkeley feel it’s their “right” to live there when they can’t afford it?”

      Shall we send them up to you?

      That was facetious. Actually, your remark infers that these people have no right to live, period, which I have suspected of you for some time. Not acceptable, Jack.

  5. J. Soden says:

    Not much hope for SF. First it was Free Needle Exchanges for the druggies and now hip boots are required to wade through what the bums leave on the sidewalks.

    Ahhhh – Liberal Heaven!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *