Question: Should Contra Costa Cities Consider Banning People from Business Districts?

23

The City of Sacramento has filed a lawsuit to ban seven men labeled as “public nuisance” from a business corridor.

The story was first reported by the Sacramento Bee which showed the suit was filed August 9.  The seven individuals include: – Sean Conner, Michael Dibiasio, Dimitriy Gologyuk, Troy Green, Kelvin C. Peterson, Joseph Soto and Kenneth Whitlock. Some of the men are homeless.

The lawsuit states the plaintiffs believe the defendants are drug users, trespassers, thieves, possessors of illegal weapons and ammunition’s, and violent criminals conducting their affairs within the City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento and State of California.   The lawsuit also highlights excessive police resources.

In the 71-page lawsuit (provided by Sacramento Bee), it highlights criminal acts along with statements from business owners and residents of the area.

Question:
Would you support or reject the idea of banning people from business districts under “public nuisance”?


23 COMMENTS

  1. Every city should start utilizing public nuisance. Antioch should be second in line behind Sacramento because our idiot residents keep feeding them, offering showers and other handouts its keeping the nuisance downtown and no one wants to go there or invest. I drove though over the weekend and the area is completely gross and full of garbage.

  2. Yes because being homeless is not an excuse to commit crime. Treat both homeless and residents the same. A resident who camps would get a ticket or fine while homeless get a pass. A resident who does drugs would get arrests, the homeless get a pass. Treat people the same, maybe I would have more empathy but I don’t. Homeless are destroying this state.

  3. If they are doing the crimes that the city claims, then why the F…..are they not in jail? No…… we have to make a new law that can’t be enforced. So now let’s sue them, like that will stop em. You would be lucky if they show up. What a joke of the judicial system. Just like illegals, house them and give them public assistance. At least they are American citizens. California again at its best pissing away tax dollars to sue themselves that could help these people or house these people.

    • Not all of them are American citizens, jg. A number of them are permanent residents of the United States. There is a difference.

  4. Yes, they have a right to ban people if they’re a “public nuisance.” But is it worth it? Will they create even more of a problem once they’re banned? Or will they go away? If they don’t go away, they’re arrested at the taxpayers expense.

    I support it, but it’s a slippery slope. If these seven are banned, will they encourage hundreds of other homeless (and other violent criminals) to show up just to cause trouble? They have all day and night to get vindictive while the rest of us work for a living.

    It’s a double edged sword. Good luck.

    • So, what do you suggest, Nick? We just let this go on? Some years ago, Brazil had a similar problem with criminal youth running rampant causing major upheavel. They took care of it and they haven’t had any problems like that since. We should study their methods.

  5. I support it, but will it do any good? Or will it be a waste of time and money? Something has to be done.

    • We have a lot of open land in the deserts! Why not put up temporary structures for them out there. there are some old mining cabins in the Ivanpah Valley which would be an ideal place for them. They aren’t doing anything anyway. Just meandering around causing problems .. Truck in food to them a couple times a week. Plenty of water … let them vegetate there!

  6. What might take care of this problem are ANTI-VAGRANCY laws. If offered housing, they cannot just say they don’t want to be housed. That won’t work. No sleeping in the streets or fields! I think if we reopen the state hospitals which were first shut down by the late Governor Edmund “Pat” Brown (Jerry’s dad) here in California, that would help the mentally ill stay out of the way and get treatment. It would also create jobs for people working in the psychological and psychiatric fields.

    • I’ve seen those when I lived in another country and there were very few homeless people around because when they refused housing and went to jail, they were not taken to some country club facility but had to be taken out to actually WORK!

  7. After seeing the sign in the photo above, “Where will we go?” How about going back to the state which bought you the one-way ticket on a Greyhound (“BUS THERAPY”) telling you to get off at the last stop, namely CA!

    • Martin, I have relatives in other states who actually bragged that they gladly paid for one-way Greyhound bus tickets for their homeless to get them out of their hair! They said, “well, it’s now California’s problem and we are not wasting our tax dollars on these people!” It made me furious! They’re off my Christmas gift list permanently! They are also barred from ever coming out here and staying with us!

      • In all fairness, CA busses the homeless out of state too. I read an article recently where the homeless were bussed from SF to the Midwest (Iowa or Ohio). All you need is a relative (with a working phone number) and you can be bussed. It’s a two way street.

        Since most Californian’s aren’t natives (I am) we probably bus just as many, and the other states are complaining about the ones we bussed out. Homelessness is a problem EVERYWHERE. Per capita, Hawaii has the most homeless, followed closely by New York. California is third.

        We’re ALL frustrated by the homeless.

  8. Y’all are forgetting that this an ideological battle. Here in the USA, were horrible at prevention and rehabilitation, but were great at punishment. Think— why is the Los Angeles county jail the #1 housing for mentally ill in the state? Until we change our ideals and values, throwing money at a problem won’t help.

  9. California needs to bus more of these people to other states! These people are setting 4-5 fires per month and in areas close to habitations.

    Many simply refuse help and housing and prefer to stay outside and that should not be permitted under any circumstances. if this continues then God only knows what people will do to get rid of them. Taking extremely drastic measures would not be a surprise. I feel it’s coming to that, unfortunately. We elect people to run our cities and those people are not doing anything. Someone must take charge!

    • A lot of them do prefer to stay outside. I had one homeless guy tell me “he preferred Gilligan’s Island to the Beverly Hillbillies.” When all else fails, hold onto your sense of humor. For the rest of us, there’s nothing funny about the homeless.

      • Oh really? They PREFER to stay outside! Is that so? Now, isn’t that just peachy! What I’d prefer to do is give them a good butt kickin’ – That would be MY preference

  10. They should not be given a choice as to what they “preferred.” It’s either get into a housing or to jail and be made to work. That’s the ONLY choice they should have!

  11. I think if people give the homeless the addresses of our city council members and encourage them to set up their tents in front of their houses, maybe the city council people will FINALLY GET OFF THEIR ASSES and do something about this PLAGUE!

  12. Response to question: I support the idea of banning these bums from business districts, residential districts AND all other districts under “PUBLIC NUISANCE.”

Comments are closed.