Slashdot Mirror


'I'll Make Their Life Miserable': Tech CEO Bullies Low-income Vendors By His Home (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes an article on The Guardian that has caused a spark on social media: A Silicon Valley tech CEO has sparked backlash for comments slamming local fruit vendors, saying he would "make their life miserable" and "destroy" their produce if they were stationed near his house -- making him the latest wealthy Californian entrepreneur to publicly rail against low-income people. Mark Woodward, CEO of software company Invoca, published -- and later deleted -- a Facebook post saying that he would have no qualms about aggressively harassing unauthorized fruit sellers in his neighborhood if they got near his home. "I would go out there and make their life miserable. I would do whatever it took to make them leave. If that meant destroying some of their produce, or standing out there with signs to chase everyone away, Or just making them very uncomfortable, I would do that in a heartbeat."

66 of 524 comments (clear)

  1. And when we have no home no job no doctor by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And when we have no home no job no doctor. We will just hang at your place and go head and call the cops the jail will give us room and board + a doctor.

    1. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And when we have no home no job no doctor. We will just hang at your place and go head and call the cops the jail will give us room and board + a doctor.

      There are already people doing pretty much the same thing because they've fallen off the ladder. It costs way more to keep them in jail rather than help them get back on their feet.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by kheldan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It costs way more to keep them in jail rather than help them get back on their feet.

      Sure it would, and it could be done. But have you noticed that such things need to be a 'top-down' solution, but instead it seems like 'someone' keeps trying to force people closer to the bottom to solve it instead? It's almost like the rich want to keep reminding the rest of us that we shouldn't complain because it could be made much, much worse for us (e.g., we could be made to 'fall off the ladder', and end up jailed, in essence, for being jobless and homeless -- so you'd better keep your 'proper' place).

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    3. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And when we have no home no job no doctor. We will just hang at your place and go head and call the cops the jail will give us room and board + a doctor.

      And that's why when you hear anyone spout "responsibility" or "no more handouts", it's really code for "I'm rich, f**k you, lower my taxes".

      Because welfare and other programs, yes, they are handouts, but they also try to keep people on the straight and narrow and try to help them stay on the right side of the law.

      Cut them off, and they still need to eat - it's not like they're going to find a job because you cut them off (assuming they can hold a job). Instead of buying their food, they're just going to steal it. And steal everything else they need. Throw them in jail? Well, good for them.

      It's just that while the rich lower their taxes by cutting them off, we end up paying for it still. The stores have to make up for the stolen goods, damaged stores, etc, so prices start rising in general. The poor get health care by ER, which is the most expensive health care around (seriously - if you could give them access to a doctor's clinic, you can save so much money - treatment by ER costs double to triple what a doctors office would charge), so we all pay in increased health care costs because they're using the most expensive form of health care we can provide. And then there's the whole justice thing - courts, police, jails, etc., taxes go up so we can house them. It costs over $100K per prisoner per year. And that doesn't even include intangible costs like the degradation of society.

      Of course, the rich save because they don't live in areas that have to deal with these issues.

      So it doesn't matter if you want to preach "responsibility" - you're not going to save money. Sure you save on your taxes, but you'll pay for it everywhere else. Sure it doesn't show up under a neat little line item, but that's just because it gets added up under a bunch of different other line items.

    4. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by Minion+of+Eris · · Score: 2

      Well... up here (Canada) that may be, but in many of the states in the U.S. keeping people locked up makes profit for the private prison systems.

      --
      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say.
    5. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're not factoring in that a lot of humans are sadists and get off on making life miserable for weaker humans, no matter how much it costs.

    6. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      But still at the expense of the taxpayer. Housing/feeding/etc prisoners costs the private prisons money, so the government pays them money to do it (more than it costs, so the private prisons profit), and the government gets that money from the taxpayer (either current ones, or future ones via borrowing). One way or another keeping someone in prison costs taxpayer money; the fact that there's a parasitic private entity making it cost even more doesn't change that, it just makes it worse.

      After all, it's not like the private prisons are paid by the prisoners, like a hotel or something.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    7. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by Pax681 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It costs way more to keep them in jail rather than help them get back on their feet.

      Sure it would, and it could be done. But have you noticed that such things need to be a 'top-down' solution, but instead it seems like 'someone' keeps trying to force people closer to the bottom to solve it instead? It's almost like the rich want to keep reminding the rest of us that we shouldn't complain because it could be made much, much worse for us (e.g., we could be made to 'fall off the ladder', and end up jailed, in essence, for being jobless and homeless -- so you'd better keep your 'proper' place).

      Yeah and there's a lot of lobbying dollars behind those privatised prisons too , we can't be interrupting their profits with progressive laws!!!

    8. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But still at the expense of the taxpayer

      Yes, but the people who get the benefit are people who own things and so it's good solid American Capitalism(TM). We wouldn't want poor people to benefit from things funded by the taxpayer, that would be Evil Socialism(TM).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Hell no! That would be cormanizzem.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      The obvious solution is to just kill anyone caught stealing/etc.

      And not in some costly process with appeals and crap like that, that shit runs even more than jailing them for life. Just shoot them on sight.

      While we're at it, why bother paying some other poor person to do the shooting when we can pay some rich buddies to build a robot to do it for us.

      We'll just put "do not kill" RFID chips in anyone who can afford to get them and the rest can be assumed poor and therefore criminal.

      Bam, problem solved. Killbots are the way of the future!

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    11. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by Pfhorrest · · Score: 3

      1. Governments have powers, not rights, so you're technically wrong while trying to be pedantic. Boo.
      2. If "USA people" had always supported folk who actually needed help, we wouldn't have had tent cities in Central Park in the Great Depression, or any homelessness or other poverty problems ever. The fact that we obviously do and have had such problems proves that private charity does not fix them; if it did, they would be fixed already.
      3. See above.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    12. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is unfathomable to me that an electorate can't recognize the conflict of interest that exists if prisons have a profit motive. Americans are very good at marketing. Americans have for profit prisons. American has by far the highest per capita incarceration rate. Do the math.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    13. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whaddyamean 'no'? So the working middle class, who the vast majority of which are just trying to make ends meet every month, are supposed to shoulder the burden of housing and feeding the homeless, instead of the 1% who have 99% of the wealth? Or did you just not understand what I meant by that?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    14. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by Rob+Y. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He's factoring them in at the appropriate level. I.e., negligible in the course of any sane discussion of public policy.

      Now maybe you were jockeying for a 'funny' mod, and it's whoever modded you 'insightful' that's the idiot here, but I've grown to appreciate the full range of pseudo-libertarian pseudo-thought on here, and can imagine that you really think pointing to sadists will somehow justify prisons as a solution to poverty. "All lives matter" bro. Right on!.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    15. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I've known some rich people; they aren't necessarily assholes.

      The problem is that a rich asshole is still an asshole, and unlike an ordinary asshole he's got an enormous societal and political footprint.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by Kohath · · Score: 2

      What does "fix" poverty? Please give us some examples where something was done and the result was no poverty any more.

    17. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

      The obvious solution is to just kill anyone caught stealing/etc.

      But then what would we do with all those empty Wall Street offices?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    18. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      Obviously, we haven't fixed poverty yet, because we still have poverty.

      Which doesn't refute the point that private charity alone was never solution enough, because if it were, it would have fixed poverty. Since poverty isn't fixed yet, private charity isn't enough, and neither are any of the other solutions we've currently implemented.

      (Which doesn't constitute an argument that we should stop those other solutions, any more than it would constitute an argument that we should stop all private charity, which nobody is arguing).

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    19. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      The problem is, how do you test for whether someone is a sociopath, and how do you keep the sociopaths who already have power from capturing that selection process to make sure anyone they don't like can't get into power.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    20. Re:And when we have no home no job no doctor by kheldan · · Score: 2

      Also, your numbers suck, the 1% doesn't have 99% of the wealth.

      Oh come on could we please knock off being so pedantic all the time? This is a casual discussion, we're not setting policy for the rest of the country here.

      Now, then.. why wouldn't it work? The people and organizations at the top of the financial foodchain are the ones with the money, why shouldn't they be the ones who are paying to solve problems like homelessness, either directly, or through taxation? Why should the burden be put on people who don't have wealth? Explain your position.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  2. Christ... by Tau+Neutrino · · Score: 4, Funny

    what an asshole.

    --
    Lemmings are silly; dinosaurs are extinct.
    1. Re:Christ... by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No. An asshole has a USE. . .

    2. Re:Christ... by misosoup7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then you are just doing what he's doing, being a vigilante.

      If he wanted the fruit vendors gone and they were truly unauthorized, then call the police on their non-emergency number. It's that simple. If the fruit vendor were authorized, then take it up with the city. Going there and destroy people's produce is destruction of property, which is vandalism or malicious mischief in California punishable by up to a year in prison.

    3. Re:Christ... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      they were truly unauthorized

      And there you have it, the same solution the asshole of the story wants. "I don't like what they are doing, lets require permits to earn a living"

      This kind of nanny state solution is exactly why the Elites of the world (like this asshole) think they can control others.

      Here's my thought. Is the road, sidewalk or otherwise public? Then ignore the whiny asshole. Fuck adding layers of additional government control on people, we have enough already. ENOUGH already. WHY must the solution to every whiny asshole be "More Regulation"???

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Christ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The county has an easement to put and maintain a road across the front of my property. They can even make me pay to add a sidewalk when they get around to it.

      I do in fact own half the road in front of my house. I 'marked' the four corners of the lot when I first bought the place! Can't stop people from driving down it, the road is public in a limited sense.

      The county cannot simply permit a third party to build a business on my property. They would have to 'adverse posses' it first.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Christ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      CEO of a telemarketing company. What did you expect?

    6. Re:Christ... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Going there and destroy people's produce is destruction of property, which is vandalism or malicious mischief in California punishable by up to a year in prison.

      I live in Texas, it is often punishable by death*. I'm not advocating DOING this, just pointing out exactly what you said. If we're just going to throw law and order out the window and inflict suffering on our fellow man because what they do annoys us. Doesn't really sound very nice, and certainly this will escalate. Incensed by a newly damaged lawn, our temper-challenged CEO will likely step this one up and retaliate. Someone will end up being hurt over unlicensed fruit sales.

      * As long as you can find a way to couch it in the right terms under the castle doctrine or property crimes laws

    7. Re:Christ... by gander666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He is "Shit with feet".

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
    8. Re:Christ... by sjames · · Score: 2

      So the only problem you see with his attitude is failure to outsource?

    9. Re:Christ... by misosoup7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not saying what he's doing is right. But I'm also saying even if you are poor, you don't get a free pass to not follow the law. And if you think the law is incorrect, petition it to get it changed. Solve problems in a civil manner.

      What shouldn't happen is bringing your own brand of justice outside of the law. That's anarchy and it's not really good for anyone.

    10. Re:Christ... by misosoup7 · · Score: 2

      I can agree to that, being a vigilante is not the way to go.

      Although I have to say he probably doesn't have that great of a lawn to start with given our nice little drought over here in CA.

  3. Help me out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    How should this thread play out? Are unlicensed vendors the noble poor today? Are we supposed to be pro-regulations or anti-regulations?

    1. Re:Help me out by whoozwah · · Score: 2

      We are supposed to be pro-human. There are ways to go about getting someone to relocate a mobile business such as this. I personally might take an afternoon and ride around looking for areas where they might do more business and then give them that information. We really choose to be assholes to each other. We can choose not to as well.

    2. Re:Help me out by shaitand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or simply buy their bag of oranges and give them to staff. It's not even a sum of money someone in the upper middle class would miss and you'd brighten the lives (as well as garnering loyalty and likely better quality work) of your staff at the same.

    3. Re:Help me out by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Given the current silicon valley fad for doing dubiously legal things and worshiping it as 'disruption'; I'd say that this legacy economy NIMBY luddite is just unjustifiably enraged at the notion of disruptive entrepreneurship happening where it might affect his precious property values, rather than somebody elses'. Were this a context where there was a greater general respect for the idea that "we restrict certain things because we've determined that they make quality of life worse", I'd be inclined to be more sympathetic; but here I'm going with 'entrepreneur lashes out at entrepreneurs poorer than he is for for unaesthetic in his presence'.

    4. Re:Help me out by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is because you're an asshole of the same level as this CEO.

  4. Consider the source... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...Invoca is a software company based in Santa Barbara, California that develops a Software as a Service platform for marketers...

    Yeah, so, to guy is pretty much an asshat anyway.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Consider the source... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      He probably even resents attempts to restrict the scope and intrusiveness of marketing, so long as it can afford a suit and a few VC rounds... A marketing flack is about the least appropriate person to be complaining about someone's intrusive advertising.

  5. Zoning laws are bad? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, are you saying that zoning laws are bad. Or are you saying that poor people can ignore them because they're poor? Can I, a-non-poor-but-not-rich-person, also ignore zoning and commerce laws at my discretion?

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    1. Re:Zoning laws are bad? by rbrander · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, this isn't about zoning laws.

      It's about America not being a computer program where all subroutines relate to each other by passing money as the only call parameter; it's a community of human beings that relate to each other on more complex levels than money most of the time.

      It's about a guy seeing a phenomenon driven by poverty - you think they're breaking the law to be radical teen rebels or something? They're desperate. So he sees this phenomenon driven by poverty and his sole concern is himself and his comfort...in this case, his psychological comfort of knowing they aren't there...please note he wasn't complaining about noise or interference with his activities; he just hated the existence of poor people on his block.

      And that's STILL absolutely OK, free country, he can have that opinion - hey, they're breaking the law and he's in the right to complain. The problem is that he's a CEO of a corporation, very much a representative of it, not just a private citizen. So he's basically saying, in the first person, PLURAL:

      "In my company, we care only for ourselves and will use very ugly, unsociable bullying against those weaker than ourselves if they inconvenience us. Now please do business with us".

      This is a news story not because he's an unpleasant neighbour and bad citizen, it's because he's a stupid CEO who just cost his company serious coin for no good reason at all.

    2. Re:Zoning laws are bad? by KalvinB · · Score: 2

      It's pretty ridiculous that I as a software developer have virtually unlimited income potential working out of a $600 a month apartment, but other people have to struggle because zoning laws force them away from potential customers and force them to pay for a place to live and a place to work.

      And their customers are forced to travel miles just to go buy simple things that they're neighbors could have more easily sold them.

      I like to see people out looking to make an honest dollar.

      The government is run by idiots. More people should ignore them in their pursuit of an honest living.

    3. Re:Zoning laws are bad? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they were breaking zoning laws and he was complaining about that, I don't think there would be as much outrage. He really crossed a line when he said it would be perfectly acceptable for him, personally, to harass the vendor or even destroy their produce until they left. If someone is breaking laws, you get the police to intervene. That's what they're paid for. This guy seems of the opinion that he can personally intervene even to the point of destroying private property and it's ok because he's rich and they're not. (He probably views the worst case scenario as: Throw some lawyers at the upset poor person so they either shut up or wind up losing what little they have.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:Zoning laws are bad? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Excuse me?

      Post one, just one, sensible, level headed reply to one of the batshit insane feminist demands (not even talking about anything coming close to Men's Rights bull, just normal, sane stuff) and prepare for impact.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Zoning laws are bad? by sjames · · Score: 2

      Your zoning may vary. A huge segment of the population must drive to the nearest store.

  6. It's a rant by mapkinase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Should we pay attention to every rant? Even if it's a CEO of a company?

    When I am ranting, I spew all kind of nonsense, threatening to exterminate all life on Earth, etc. Does it mean something beside the fact that I have a temper so hot that I can't restraint myself from public display of expressing it.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  7. Re:Two-Sided by srmalloy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Some people get so rich they lose all respect for humanity. That's how rich I want to be." -- Rita Rudner

    Apparently the bar for this level of wealth has been dropping significantly over the years.

  8. leadership team by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Funny
    The best part is the description of the leadership team on the company website, which:

    "advertises its leadership team as the 'big brains and small egos creating amazing technology".

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:leadership team by erapert · · Score: 2

      Small hands?

  9. OFFTOPIC: Slashdot "disable ads" feature is gone by iONiUM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did anyone else notice the checkbox to disable ads for high karma users is now gone on Slashdot?

    It stopped working a few weeks ago, and now it's just gone altogether.

  10. Channeling Cro Threadstrong by Zephyn · · Score: 2

    "FRUIT VENDOR!!! Your cart is still in our way! We will give you one more hour to move it from our area. Do not test our patience anymore!"

    1. Re:Channeling Cro Threadstrong by iCEBaLM · · Score: 2

      Does this fruit vendor not value his life? You are running out of time FRUIT VENDOR!!

  11. Public Figure Rant != Your Rant by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, I fully agree with your generalization because as a normal person I don't have to be concerned with a public image. Once you are in the public spotlight the game changes, and everything you do will be scrutinized because at that level you sell your image. Celebrities, including CEOs are not smarter than other people. Sometimes quite the opposite, because they get caught up in their image and neglect the basics.

    It's like the guy in SF who publicly wanted to be a "thought leader" and then starts bashing homeless people. I have no sympathy for that person, because their goal was to be a public voice. The contract for selling your soul for loads of cash and public spotlights is messy. The next guy should be a whole lot more careful about what they say, and read the contract.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  12. Re:Two-Sided by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    The last I looked, intentionally destroying someone's property (destruction of property) to scare them away (intimidation) are crimes.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  13. Re:Two-Sided by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is not two sided. We as a culture, would much rather ignore the problems of the poor than face them.
    This argument "I don't want to see poor people" are Coded in a lot of different ways.
    "Worried about property values", "Maintain community values", "Allow our children to safely play outside"...
    But it really comes down to the fact that we don't want to see poor people. Because they can be scary because there isn't much for them to lose. And we may emotionally feel bad for them, and we don't want to feel bad.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  14. Proof that many rich folks live on another planet by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2

    Through luck and some hard work, my family and I are fortunate enough to be able to live in "the nice part of town." We're by no means rich; we make decent salaries, but we're not doctors or executives. Therefore we're always waiting for the career-instability shoe to drop and don't "act rich" for the most part. However, because we live in that nice part of town, we have a lot of interactions with people who are doctors, lawyers, executives and so on. A lot of them are nice normal people who just happen to have lots of money. They even let their kids hang out with ours! :-) But, there seems to come a point where someone just has so much that they turn into a clone of this guy. It's a small fraction of the population, but they're quite noticeable.

    I've seen this in my job dealing with executives of large companies as well. Once you get to that level, everything in your life is taken care of for you. Your transportation is arranged for you, meals are handled, house is managed by a staff, family is cared for by a staff, and so on. Anything even slightly out of place like a street vendor is an emergency that needs to be dealt with immediately and harshly. This rant sounds like something a typical "new money" tech CEO would say to one of his friends, but now the world gets to hear how he really feels. It's just further proof that the executive crowd is completely disconnected from reality, and explains things like massive layoffs with no regard to the impact on the business or the individuals.

  15. Let's male bash while we are at it. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "They mark only the latest example of a male tech CEO making aggressive, insensitive and tone-deaf remarks about people less fortunate than them."
    Really? Do we have to throw gender into this?

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Let's male bash while we are at it. by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes - anyone with a brain can read the article posted and see he said nothing about low income people, or disparaging remarks against the poor or minorities - someone set up a stand in front of someone else's house, and his rant was "if that was my house..." And he was right to be annoyed. This was a hit piece against a wealthy white guy, that goes on to bemoan income disparity in tech fields with "low income workers and people of color." Their rant had nothing to do with his rant; he just ended up being a convenient target.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  16. Re:Two-Sided by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

    Possible isn't probable.

  17. Re:Two-Sided by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    But sometimes people really are worried about property values, and really do want their children to safely play outside.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  18. Re:Two-Sided by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apparently, some people think that the first step towards being filthy rich is to treat people like garbage.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  19. Not that simple by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are some issues here that may apply. Is the vendor blocking traffic? Some placements will generate traffic congestion. That makes the vendor non-harmless. Is the vendor on private property without permission? That's a bad idea all around, not so much because "hey someone is selling stuff" but because it sets a negative precedent about the right to control what one owns. Blocking the sidewalk? That's no good either. The sidewalk seems to me to be something you can reasonably share -- it's public property, which means the vendor has a stake in it as well -- but if you block the sidewalk, you've gone too far. I don't think it's too much to ask that a vendor arrange their business such that the sidewalk and the road both remain traversible without requiring detour or delay.

    I'm no fan of licenses per se, I think they are counter-productive on almost every level I can think of other than as a means of extracting money from the business community (and often that's counter productive as well), but if you're selling food, cooked or otherwise, I *am* a fan of inspection. If you haven't passed a recent inspection for handling, storage, cleanliness and refrigeration / prep as would be considered reasonable practice for whatever it is you are selling, I'd prefer you weren't allowed to sell, and if I can't have that, I'd at LEAST like to know about it so I can avoid your enterprise. Likewise healthcare, sexual services, etc. You should have the right to conduct business, but that should be tempered with the responsibility to do so in a safe and sane manner that takes the health and welfare of your customers into account as much as possible.

    IMHO, most communities go way, way, too far when it comes to who can do what, where. And they do this to create "sanitized" zones where the "undesirables" are prevented from sullying the space they consider to be theirs. I find that attitude generally despicable if the space is public. If the space is private, then it should be 100% up to the owner, not the community, how that space is used. You want to spend a zillion bucks on a big house? Fine. Guy next to you wants to put up a rusty old junker on blocks right next to the property line? Fine. You don't like it? Should have bought more property (and perhaps less house) so your tender little eyes wouldn't have to suffer the indignity of photons you don't like. Some high fences would help too.

    Anyway. It seems to me that the high road almost inevitably consists of giving your fellow human beings some room to exist and hopefully exercise some opportunity to improve their lot. I'm really pretty tired of "me first" explanations for what amounts to casual maltreatment of others. I understand and agree with concerns about private property you own. Beyond the boundaries of your own property, my sympathies for complaints about actions of others that do not directly pick your pocket or break your leg drop off dramatically.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Not that simple by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      I'm fine with that they just need to clean up for a few months when I'm ready to sell until then I'll enjoy the lower property taxes.

    2. Re:Not that simple by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      If I understand correctly, most home owners object to the neighbours putting rusty old junkers up on blocks in the yard not because it hurts their precious feelings but because it hurts their property values

      I had an elderly neighbor complained to me about the dead petunias in my front yard, claiming that it took $50,000 off her home value. Never mind she wasn't selling her house. Some people get extremely obnoxious during a rising real estate market in California.

  20. A non-issue? by twotacocombo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, this guy is talking out his ass, but I'm pretty sure it's because he knows he'll never have to back his words up with actions. Seriously, where do you usually see fruit/ice cream carts? Here in the San Fernando Valley, it's usually around the lower income areas, such as manufacturing districts, public parks, cheaper housing. I've never seen a fruit cart in my lower middle class neighborhood, let alone the richy rich areas. I doubt the 1%ers anywhere would eat off one of those carts anyway, when they can just have their PA go down to Whole Foods and pick up a truck load of whatever. There's just not enough foot traffic or eager customers for the carts in these areas, so they simply have no incentive to be there. This guy is just inventing a scenario where he thinks he sounds tough and can rally his kind against the poors, but would most likely get his ass kicked if he started destroying someones livelyhood.

  21. Re:Two-Sided by Jhon · · Score: 2

    "I hate sounding preachy, but you shouldn't use wealth to give yourself some moral superiority."

    Most "opportunity" is available and achievable at the cost of some sacrifice. What we have are few people who are willing to live elsewhere (where they might find a job) or even more basic -- holding off marriage and parenthood until one can afford a family.

    If you want to dramatically reduce a chance to live in poverty, don't do drugs, dont drink, work hard in school and DO NOT HAVE KIDS without a spouse and until you can afford them. After that, it's about living where you can find work.