Forum Discussion
jdc1 wrote:
johnhicks wrote:
The intent is to prevent the homeless from camping in non-CG parks and rights-of-way by criminalizing them.
They might as well just say "Being homeless in Tennessee is a felony".
Yes, let's make it illegal to be poor.
This is not the only policy in that state, that if commonly known would cause most to avoid the state.- Itsy, you are correct. This case is certainly a "separation of church and state" issue, thereby an interpretation of US Constitution.
charlestonsouthern wrote:
Johnhicks, yes, it is now a federal case in the state of Colorado between a church (their private property) who brings in visiting ministers with their RVs (and have been doing this for years) versus the local municipality or county.
The Pueblo CO case is dealing with the RLUIPA so it is limited to only the regulations on a religious organization. A favorable ruling for the ministry would not apply to a Walmart or Cracker Barrel.- Johnhicks, yes, it is now a federal case in the state of Colorado between a church (their private property) who brings in visiting ministers with their RVs (and have been doing this for years) versus the local municipality or county. I'll try to find the case. US Constitutional Law is involved.
The Tennessee problem is that it is written too broad, so much so that it requires the townships to totally enforce it (which takes a lot of money) and takes away the power to run their own towns while affecting their small economy. If the Tennessee law was written strictly to run the homeless out of the state, then say that in the law; don't be political hypocrits and have it inclusive of tourism. All very small Tennessee towns do not have RV parks, but they do need RV tourists cash for their economy while driving through. The state says these towns will be penalized if they don't enforce the state law; well, then, the state should provide the money to do it. dedmiston wrote:
Hi Don - It looks like this only applies to Tennessee. I added "TN" to your topic name to make it easier to see that this isn't a federal mandate. Speaking of that, I didn't read the article closely enough to see if this only applies to state & local land or does it also apply to Federal lands. It looks like it's geared more towards local parks to address homelessness.
And also because I'm a trouble-maker, I'm moving this to "RV Parks, Campgrounds and Attractions" since this really isn't a "Roads & Routes" topic.
I had no clue where to put it--so Thank you! I should have include Tennessee, too.johnhicks wrote:
The intent is to prevent the homeless from camping in non-CG parks and rights-of-way by criminalizing them.
They might as well just say "Being homeless in Tennessee is a felony".- In a related topic, I just recently read that that a federal apellate court is going to hear a case banning local municipalities from forbidding overnight parking on commercial property when the property owner allows it, such as Walmart etc, on that such a ban infringes on the property owner's first amendment rights. I don't recall where I read it, but it would have been a reliable news source.
Anyone else? - We do not want the problem that Seattle or Portland or Salt Lake City has with so called 'stealth' camping. It does not stop you from parking at Walmart or any other place that will let you overnight in their parking lot unless there is a local ordinance against it in place anyway. If you've watched the news of late then you can see the negative consequences of allowing this on public streets or lands. I say good for them for passing this law. If Portland or Seattle or L.A. wants them then they can go there.
charlestonsouthern wrote:
All of this may require a couple of nights parking say on a dead end street.
Require? They could simply stay at a nearby RV park or campground.
I doubt this will have any economic impact on tourism. This is about homelessness. It is trying to scare the homeless into shelters and/or out of Tennessee. The only RVers it will affect are those who prefer to stealth camp rather than pay for campsites.- There could be an economic bad side to this. A lot of Canadians driving down in their RV and taking the back roads; they happen upon a nice little Tennessee town and decide to spend some time being a tourist and drop some cash at the neighborhood grocery store, restaurant, microbrewery, antique store, admission to a small museum, and/or trinket shop. All of this may require a couple of nights parking say on a dead end street. The Tennessee municipalities or townships know how tourism works in their town; however, the state has taken these decisions out of the townships hands. Therefore, the Canadian RVer drives right through town on the way to their final destination and not dropping any cash in that Tennessee town. When a state writes new laws, they should not take out part of the economies of small towns.
