They will take your house for not paying property taxes, so why can't they take your vehicle for law violations?
My assesment is this: It's Seattle and people are living on the sidewalks in tents. I've seen it. People have old, broken down RV's that look as if they've been parked there forever.
Exacerbating the homeless situation by letting these people camp wherever they like seems like a step towards the communist future that the kike parasites infesting our nation desire.
You own nothing and you are graciously allowed to camp out on public land. Who owns the public land? Kikes and wannabe kikes.
True, true, true... But...
"you can count your money and burn it within the nod of a buffalo's head, but no one except the Great Spirit can count the grains of sand and the blades of grass of these plains." - Sitting Bull
The question is where they're supposed to go, you can throw them in prison but then they're living on the tax payer dime and likely in better conditions than they were before.
If "they" will take your house for not paying property taxes, then it's not "your" house.
I'm not arguing with you. I'm just considering the truth in your statement and your supplicant acceptance thereof.
With the government continuing to tell people they can't collect rent or evict it also calls into question who really owns the property.
That one line from the article... that one line sums it up: "The justices held that it was unconstitutionally excessive for Seattle to impound a homeless man’s truck and require him to reimburse the city nearly $550 in towing and storage costs."
The fucking audacity of that reporter to write it in such a way!
The whole story would have sounded differently if he would have said:
"The justices held that it was unconstitutionally excessive for Seattle to impound a homeless man’s truck home and require him to reimburse the city nearly $550 in towing and storage costs."
....see how nuance can be used to influence the reader's perception?
(post is archived)