Criminalizing Poverty

Published on November 11, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

As of November 13, 2006, the small town of Lefors, Texas will be one step closer to making poverty criminal and enforcing actions of those who dare to make insufficient income to meet the town's standards.

In their City Council meeting, they are scheduled to discuss an ordinance "establishing a minimum standard of living and prohibiting scavenging from dumpsters". These ordinances are being specifically written to target families who do not live to the town's expected standard of living, and to give the town muscle for enforcement. Once finalized, they will allow the full force of law to fine families who do not have the money to meet the standard of living that their council of five deems to be the legal minimum for living in their community.

Oddly enough, noone among the community has seen the hypocrisy of fining people who don't have the money to pay for certain creature comforts.

Because Lefors is such a small community, however, nobody seems to care. Advocates for the poor who will readily defend the right of someone to live out of a park in San Francisco are remarkably silent when approached with a small Texas town's "right" to demand that people who live on certain properties (some of whom OWN said properties)live to a standard of living set about by the community oligarchs. To say nothing of criminalizing those who would save landfill space by reusing something that was otherwise destined to take up said space.

This law in Lefors, Texas is specifically targetted. Towards my family because we dared to help a family whose water was shut off by allowing them to get water from our house, and because we had the audacity to pull quite usable items (including a handmade quilt) out of our dumpster rather than see them end up as waste. To the family who had the audacity of being too poor to pay the water bill. To the couple who are community pariahs because they use an outbuilding on their property for showering (in complete privacy, I might add) because they couldn't afford a $5,000 bathroom remodel. To all who dare question the unlimited authority of the Lefors City Council.

Lefors is not a wealthy community, by any means. There are no $100,000 homes with interest in protecting their property values. The median income of the community is well below the national average, and many of the citizens are elderly and on fixed incomes. But as the city has already established with other ordinances, this new ordinance will be selectively enforced. It is written to target certain citizens, and target certain citizens it will.

If anybody knows an attorney who would be willing to represent anyone affected by this legislation, you may contact me at: gideon.macleish@gmail.com. Media coverage would also be well appreciated. I will be attending the meeting to provide specific details of the proposed ordinance (which will be passed with a rubber stamp, as with other recent ordinances), and would like to work with you to ensure that this miscarriage of justice never sees fruition. The US Constitution, after all, does not end at our city limits.

Comments (Page 1)

Dan Greene

on Nov 11, 2006

That sounds like it sucks, I bet rather then reaching out to the JU community you could instead, attend the next town hall meeting, state your case, and appeal to the town's fund for people in need of some help. If the community is too small to provide a homeless shelter, and it looks like a large truckstop on google maps to be honest, perhaps you could get something taken care of within the local government.

I would imagine that anything inside a dumpster or garbage can becomes property of the city/town/muncipality even at the garbage dump, and to prevent liability issues the town would see fit to keep people out of the garbage. Yes it is too much government influence and control and interference in our lives, but since you do live in such a crappy small town, your single vote on things, does count for a lot more then mine does up in Appleton a community of 75,000.

Good luck.

Gideon MacLeish

on Nov 11, 2006

This is NOT about trying to make a better community, Dan...

These people are specifically trying to run me and others out of town.

I realize you think all people are altruistic, but that is simply not the case. This town of 500 has the only active chapter of the KKK of any town in the TX Panhandle, and I have reason to believe they're well entrenched within the government. I was told in the wake of Hurricane Katrina when we offered housing for refugees that I would be run out of this town because "we don't want no N------s in this town". Do you REALLY think that sounds like the type of city that would be ready with ASSISTANCE for those who need it?

The dumpster thing is also not being done with safety concerns in mind, believe me. It's a minor issue, but you need to realize that most of the residents of this town are pretty much career scavengers. The law will NOT be equally enforced, and that is my concern. You don't make a law to enforce it on a certain segment of society.

I have no need for personal assistance for myself or my family. But I have a moral obligation to speak out against injustices, and this proposed ordinance WILL be an injustice when it is in place and in force. This community is one of the most hostile, least friendly communities I have EVER encountered...and the fact we don't have a way to move out of it at present leads me to believe I may have some higher purpose in being here.

I respect your POV even when I disagree with it, Dan, but the truth is, this proposed legislation is not in ANY way a benign peace of legislation. This is an ordinance specifically designed to harass and drive out the "undesirable elements. And it is precisely what is wrong with ANY legislation designed to enforce government approved lifestyles of ANY stripe.

Gideon MacLeish

on Nov 11, 2006

Yeah, I feel like I'm dancing with the devil on this one, but it may be my best option.

Jythier

on Nov 11, 2006

Most likely, the ordinance will be passed with some vague notion of a minimum standard of living. The more vague it is, the better it is for you. Laws can be deemed unconstitutional if they are too vague to be enforced or followed properly.

The scavenging from dumpsters thing sounds pretty specific, though. But it is very contrary to the policy of recycling and conservation that every other place seems to follow. I don't know if that will help legally, though.

Gideon MacLeish

on Nov 11, 2006

The scavenging from dumpsters thing sounds pretty specific, though. But it is very contrary to the policy of recycling and conservation that every other place seems to follow. I don't know if that will help legally, though.

Yeah, I'll let that one go, as it's obviously not a major concern. These guys want to fill up landfills, let 'em fill 'em up, heck, I don't care. But as for the minimum standard of living ordinance, I intend to follow every word of it and challenge it if it is appropriate to do so.

I'm not so much concerned about me. I AM, however, concerned about the direction the local government is taking. I really don't care to sit there and take these issues to court; I'd rather just be left alone. But they're making it clear that if we comply with every law they write, they'll just keep writing more laws until they can nail us on SOMETHING. Might be a good time to give the state AG's office a call and see if they want to take a look at things. I could bust them on Fair Housing laws with no difficulty for their refusal to allow blacks to move into town.

Dan Greene

on Nov 11, 2006

You know what you're right Gideon, go get em. Not really sure a law to stop career scavengers is really all that big of a deal. I would imagine in a small town it might lead to some jealousy or what not but I don't live there. My advice to you is, try to beat em if you can. If not get out of Dodge, a town of 500 with little or no economic future, is no place to raise a family or live your life if you aren't welcome.

"many of the citizens are elderly and on fixed incomes."

Old people with nothing better to do. Up here they sometimes try to get people to not have flag poles with flags on em. Why can't people just get along you know, mind their own damn business, post their gripes online, lol.

Upon re-reading your initial post as well as the racial hatred comments, along with the KKK, thing. It's a small town, it's a dying town, and old people don't let go of old hate. Fighting the situation may give you satisfcation, but in the long run it will only cause you more resentment, and ill will. Elderly do not let go of hate, they do not forgive, and they have nothing better to do, but as you say make up their own rules, cause they were there first, and spend their day's bugging up the ass, living on fixed income.

This isn't to say all elderly people are bad or I hate them all but I do know that racial hatred in the south still exists in part because of the "wisdom" passed down by the elderly not by the fact that racial hatred is right.

It is a tough break and I'll support you in whatever way I can, not sure what that would be. I respect your decision to stand up and fight it tremendously. Just make sure it's worth it to yourself. Because if it is not, then for me, I would abdicate and let them be racist and bigoted, and isolated, and the sands of time bury their tiny little hate town.

bakerstreet

on Nov 11, 2006

#1 I think this is vile, and people who would pass such are scum.

#2 I'm not sure I can agree that they shouldn't be allowed to pass such. What is your constitutional basis for telling them that they can't decide on this themselves?

Dr Guy

on Nov 11, 2006

This is not new Gideon. After all, Merry Olde England had debtors prisons hundreds of years ago! Where do you think Georgia and Australia came from?

Zoologist03

on Nov 11, 2006

Where do you think Georgia and Australia came from?

Heh, good point.

I don't see how people can be like this....it hurts my brain to try and find their rationale...well, I could probably find it, but I sure as hell wouldn't accept it.

~Zoo

MasonM

on Nov 11, 2006

Many communities have laws against dumpster diving so that isn't exactly new. As for the standard of living thing, it's hard to know what if anything is wrong with it without knowing specifics. If it's simply a requirement for residential properties to have running water and toilets many communities have such laws already. If it's something more than that specifics would be needed.

bakerstreet

on Nov 11, 2006

Yeah, I assume there's more to it than just the running water and dumpster diving. If that's all it is then there's no possible way to fight it. I've never lived in-town that the community didn't require running water.

To me, and I'm sorry Gid, but if I was going to be Libertarian about it, I'd have to say they have the right to make what rules they want, and you have the right to live there or not.

Gideon MacLeish

on Nov 12, 2006

#2 I'm not sure I can agree that they shouldn't be allowed to pass such. What is your constitutional basis for telling them that they can't decide on this themselves?

For one thing, this isn't being put to a popular vote. We have no say in the matter other than voting the bums out of opffice and overturning their dirty work.

For another, you REALLY believe they should be allowed to regulate what people do on their own property, Baker? Come on, this devil's advocate shit really doesn't become you.

I already basically conceded the dumpster diving issue. To me, that's a nonissue, although it is quite ridiculous and petty. But to regulate "a minimum standard of living" takes them beyond my property line, beyond my front door, where they were NEVER intended to be allowed to go.

Your logic could well be extended to a law to execute certain ethnic groups. A majority vote should not negate individual, inalienable rights.

bakerstreet

on Nov 12, 2006

"For one thing, this isn't being put to a popular vote. We have no say in the matter other than voting the bums out of opffice and overturning their dirty work."

Hey, there's very little that gets put to a popular vote in this country. What percent of city council decisions around the country get opened up to a referendum, would you say? A tenth of a percent?

"For another, you REALLY believe they should be allowed to regulate what people do on their own property, Baker? Come on, this devil's advocate shit really doesn't become you."

Democracy's advocate, not Devil's. I don't believe there is anything Libertarian about limiting people's right to govern themselves based upon ideals that no one agreed upon beforehand. I disagree with a lot of community standards, but I don't believe it is just to impose my ideals on the majority based upon values they don't share, either.

"But to regulate "a minimum standard of living" takes them beyond my property line, beyond my front door, where they were NEVER intended to be allowed to go."

Again, you've not said what this means. If all it is is requiring people to have sewage and running water, you don't have a leg to stand on. You'll forgive me for expressing my doubts considering people are asking and you aren't giving any details.

"Your logic could well be extended to a law to execute certain ethnic groups. A majority vote should not negate individual, inalienable rights."

What rights? Please, if you would, lay them out for us. You need to, because that is what will validate taking away the rights of the town to create policy for itself. You want to tell them they can't make a rule, but then you aren't really lining out much of a reason why.

bakerstreet

on Nov 13, 2006

allo?

You can dismiss my argument as me playing the devil's advocate, but in reality you know I have written on this, and it is my main beef with Libertarianism. When you take the step to tie the hands of your community, you need a reason for them to be unable to democratically legislate their existence.

Libertarianism assumes that less government is better, and to an extreme. In a lot of areas you may well be right. You may well be right on this issue. I don't think, though, that you can just say "well, duh" and expect the people of your community to follow along.

So, I'll ask again. What imposition is this statute creating? What constitutional right are they invading? As has been said, if it is just requiring running water and sewage, I think you've not got a leg to stand on.

How many people in the entire US, would you say, would have a problem with requiring running water in a home? 1%? How many people in a town setting would want to live next door to people who have an outhouse?

So, in this case, what is your precedent for challenging the majority in a Democracy? Forgive me, but I believe you have to have a reason to beat us out of our right to make laws concerning our lives.

Tova7

on Nov 13, 2006

My gal pal is a health inspector for the state of ohio.

You can not have a sink in your house or shed, on your own property, without it being attached to an operable septic system, or country sewage system. She not only fines people who violate this, but also tapes off their houses after telling them they have ten minutes to collect their things and vacate.

I think a lot of states have similar things all under "health dept."

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!