On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:41:42 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 11-May-14 17:50, hancock4 wrote:
> Yes, affluent communities are nicer places to live than poor
> communities; that's why the affluent people pay more to live in the
> former, which creates a virtuous cycle there--and a vicious cycle on the
> other side.

And that is something transit carriers must deal with.  This includes things
like whether to order cushioned seats or hard plastic, whether to have the
drivers make change, etc.


> > I can't help but suspect that a homeless person or beggar on DART
> > will not be treated as kindly by the carrier, cops, or courts, as say
> > one in Philadelphia.  I can't help but suspect that the courts in
> > Dallas take a different stance on the rights of "free speech" than
> > they do in the northeast US.  That all plays a difference on the
> > platform of a transit line.

> The cops here don't care about "free speech" either way; all they care
> about is whether you're committing a crime, and speech (except in rare
> cases) is not itself a crime.  OTOH, if you're committing criminal
> trespass in order to make said speech, they _will_ arrest you for
> that--just as they would if you weren't speaking; your motivation or
> subsequent behavior is immaterial to that crime.
> For cops to behave any differently is a bizarre concept to me, and
> perhaps that is part of your "oppressive dictatorship" problem.

You disregarded my commeent on how courts treat situations.  Heck, courts vary
by county within a single state, so it is understandable if they vary by state.

I probably should've explained the free speech issue further as it pertains to
transit.  In the Northeast US, the courts have ruled that much of the adverse
behavior of homeless and troubled people on the transit system is a
reprsentation of free speech 
and thus protected.  So in certain cities, arresting a passenger for
disruptive behavior or trespassing will be met by a lawsuit by the ACLU and
other advocacy groups.  

As mentioned, I dare say the courts in Dallas will not be as tolerant of
disruptive behavior as they are elsewhere.  Further, lawsuits by advocacy
groups won't get very far.

> Being poor means not having enough income to pay for basic necessities
> of life; they're always short on paying _some_ bill.  Rent is usually
> the biggest bill they have--and the least immediate due to the lengthy
> legal process to evict them, so that's not surprising.

Being poor unfortunately often reflects an inability to budget one's money or
maintain consistency at a job.  Poor people waste a lot of their money on
alcohol, drugs, and spur of the moment purchases they can't afford.  Whether
you agree or not, they 
just don't think things through.

> Here, though, you can't rent by the week; if you don't pay the full
> amount on the due date, the landlord files for eviction the next day,
> and then no other landlord will rent them an apartment either.  They end
> up living in "extended stay" motels, which aren't subject to the
> eviction process: if you don't pay to extend your stay by noon on the
> checkout date, they call the cops for criminal trespass.

Depending on the location, eviction can take four or more months.  It takes
longer in the city than the suburbs, simply because city courts are much more
sympathetic to the tenant.

As to a deadbeat tenant being unable to rent another apt, credit checks are a
waste of time, because poor people have notoriously bad credit history.  

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
 * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)