One thing you can count on is that when Mayor Alan Autry is on the losing side of a legal case, he will blame the judge, and not consider that the city may have been wrong in its actions. The judge is picking on the city, he contends, or the judge doesn't know the law. So Autry's blistering criticism of Federal Judge Oliver W. Wanger Wednesday was not surprising.
Wanger said the city's policy of immediately destroying the belongings of homeless people during sweeps of homeless settlements if they are not present to claim their property is a violation of their constitutional rights. Wanger, the veteran federal judge who is one of the most respected jurists in the region, doesn't know what he's talking about, says Autry.
The mayor, as we all know, got his legal training as Sgt. Bubba Skinner on the television series "In the Heat of the Night." Wanger's credentials aren't nearly as impressive. He got a B.S. from the University of Southern California and his law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law.
This is what Autry said: about Wanger's ruling "This is yet another example of a judge making decisions based on limited, skewed and false information. These cavalier rulings continue to compromise not only the health of this community but the health of the homeless as well."
Here's The Bee's story on the case by John Ellis.
By the way, Wanger was appointed a federal judge in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush. You know how those Republican presidents like to stack the federal bench with liberal judges who don't know what they are talking about.
Mayor Autry can try to appeal if he feels he can make a case.
Nicely written. As to the property or various being hazardous to the homeless, I have a few neighbors that have been guilty of excessive use of pesticides and collecting, what looks like to some, perishable junk in their garages as well. Will the city go in and remove these items as well for the safety of all mankind? Although they might belong to the person that owns that property, the city knows best? Besides it may just be a few valuable personal items that aren't really necessary right? Besides it's not like it's ALL they own in the world.
Sarcasm doesn't convey itself well via written word but it was present in the previous line. An honest statement would be the part where IF the homeless could vote (you need an established address to do so) they would get a LOT more respect from those that rely on such support to keep their jobs.
If not by the grace of God, there goes anyone. Having them not lumped into an issue like visible trash cans and being put out of sight and mind so to pretend they don't exist? Adding on destroying what items these people have collected just to survive day to day? Forget about the Constitutional Rights issues. What about human decency when a fellow neighbor has fallen on hard times not imaginable to many?
I was witness to several 'dot com', 6 figure families in exclusive South Bay Los Angeles neighborhoods losing everything they had in the mid-1980's. They were left to live out of their cars within 30 days time. They had it better than most anyone in this Central Valley area even 20 years ago and believed such diversity would never happen to them. When it did, they found that there were programs, volunteers, and agencies that helped protect what they had left till they got back on their feet and became a viable part of the community again. In this area, it seems like all homeless are treated like the criminal element. Although some resort to breaking the law, it's mostly because the options are not there.
Many at City Hall are too busy treating the symptom and not addressing the cause or permanent solutions. Maybe letting some of the homeless go through the City leader's homes and have them take some or all of their posses ions for safe keeping would get the message through as to how this feels? It's time for people to step up and point out that we have a major homeless problem to those that choose to deny it. Look to other communities that have constructive programs or processes that have worked would be a start. However crushing their spirit by destroying possibly all they had left in the world, is hardly the answer. Without hope for a better life, why try? A college degree or even a court order isn't necessary to know that. Just an ounce of common sense could figure that one out.
My wife and I are in Fresno for a temporary assignment. When I spoke to a friend of mine in Texas and told him where I was located, he immediately talked about the City of Fresno demolishing the homeless person's shelters and their personal items. This action was news around the country and an embarrassment for the City of Fresno.
While most people celebrate the holidays comforted by family and material possessions, homeless people cling to photographs and meager belongings collected during better times. I know the the city has a problem with the conditions that the homeless people live in. I believe that the City of Fresno should approach this delimma with compassion for their fellow humans first.
Destroying what may seem to others to be trash may just be the items one person needs to make it through through difficult times.
Was the "Bubba" comment necessary?
Last time I checked, judges are human and because of that, they can make mistakes...
Education, who appointed him, etc. all do not matter, what matters is did he follow the law in this particular case? In my opinion, the argument should have focused on that, rather than "Bubba" and his educational background.
If it walks like a Bubba, talks like a Bubba, and has played a Bubba on Tee-Vee, well it just goes to that area of calling whatever, a "Bubba". You can decorate a dead horse all you want in silver and flashy blankets, much like this city. Maybe to attract tourist, conventioneers, or new residents to this area, but it's still like a dead horse collecting more flies by the moment.
Until a viable solution for the homeless is found this town will not be worth visiting, touring, or residing in as hoped. I also heard from my friend in North Carolina saying that this travesty had made their news as well. I have been trying to get him to relocate here so to get out of storms, tornadoes, and flooded areas. He said he'd prefer that as opposed to living in an area where they're so quick to put struggling neighbors out to the curb as yesterday's trash. Although in a low income, unemployed area, they help all those in need in their area, and they certainly don't diminish them by destroying all they have.
Denying that this is a Bubba move is being blind to what actually happened. Things can't be replaced, and the deed is done, so the next thing to do is to make sure it doesn't happen again. Find the cause, fix that, and please stop treating the symptoms! If the city took as much thought about the homeless situation as it did about visible trash cans on the street, that would be a start. Just as long as it doesn't involve putting them out of sight and mind, like the trash cans, till a specified date to be named later.