I get the sentiment for this one, but the pastor in question is simply acting like they’re above the law. Hemant Mehta (AKA “The Friendly Atheist”) covered this story on his YouTube channel:
The short of it is that where this pastor’s church is set up is not in the right zone for housing people, the building isn’t designed for it, and he’s actually puttinf them in danger. And on top of having already been in trouble for this once, I found out in the process of finding the first video that he’s still doing it!
That said, I still up-voted the post, because while the pastor is actually in the wrong, so is the state. There’s zero reason why these people should have to resort to sheltering in a building that isn’t safe just to avoid succumbing to the elements.
Wow, the guy you linked comes off as a total tool. Pretty much all the city violations he’s creepily giddy to list off with his Ajit Pai smile all turn into a moot point when the alternative is LITERALLY SLEEPING ON THE STREET. You think someone gives a single shit if there aren’t enough visible exit signs? You think they care if the functioning smoke detectors don’t have a record of regular inspections? He also lists off how “dangerous” the homeless are, with their drug use and past crimes. Yea, they’re fucking homeless. What? You think they all have a squeaky clean record?
Look at the violations he listed and ask yourself how many of those probably apply to your own place of residence. When was the last time you had a fire inspector come and certify that your fire alarms were working? Does your house have fire sprinklers in every room? If you have a propane grill, is the tank stored up to restaurant code, or is it just stored outside on the ground? Do you have a record of when you last replaced the vent tube on your dryer? No? Oh ok. So maybe people aren’t immediately in mortal danger when those codes aren’t followed. And yes, there’s a reason for the codes; but none of them should stand in the way of desperate people seeking shelter from the elements.
There’s always more to the story. I’m not going to say the pastor is entirely blameless as it does sound like the city gave him multiple opportunities to fix violations. But when the fight is between a local government (which are notorious for anti-homeless regulations) throwing out a list of what seem like very nitpicky issues, and a guy literally just trying to give the most downtrodden people a temporary place to sleep and wash their clothes, I’m leaning toward the guy housing people being the one in the right.
How can a building be safe at one point of the day, but suddenly unsafe during another? That sounds like an idiotic code designed to punish exactly this.
In real terms, no, the risks are very low. Far lower than dying exposed in the gutter outside.
In code terms, the laws are based in safety and to keep people from slumlording.
Semi-public sleeping areas need to provide accessible beds, adequate fire alarms/suppression, and sufficient bathroom/sanitation access. Think of it like the requirements to run an actual shelter.
Ideally, this would be a temporary situation, and they’d either relocate the people to somewhere with facilities or, if they intend to run a shelter, properly convert the church.
The actual code this church violated has to do with the plot of land, not the building itself. It has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with the people controlling how others use land they didn’t own.
I mean, we all know the Bible verse: “And so, the people of Bethlehem sent Joseph and the highly pregnant Mary away. They were in the right, since taking them in might have slightly inconvenienced them, and was against zoning regulations, posing a potential fire hazard”
I get the sentiment for this one, but the pastor in question is simply acting like they’re above the law. Hemant Mehta (AKA “The Friendly Atheist”) covered this story on his YouTube channel:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JrlUNGFVN4I&pp=ygUgVGhlIGZyaWVuZGx5IGF0aGVpc3Qgb2hpbyBwYXN0b3I%3D
The short of it is that where this pastor’s church is set up is not in the right zone for housing people, the building isn’t designed for it, and he’s actually puttinf them in danger. And on top of having already been in trouble for this once, I found out in the process of finding the first video that he’s still doing it!
That said, I still up-voted the post, because while the pastor is actually in the wrong, so is the state. There’s zero reason why these people should have to resort to sheltering in a building that isn’t safe just to avoid succumbing to the elements.
Wow, the guy you linked comes off as a total tool. Pretty much all the city violations he’s creepily giddy to list off with his Ajit Pai smile all turn into a moot point when the alternative is LITERALLY SLEEPING ON THE STREET. You think someone gives a single shit if there aren’t enough visible exit signs? You think they care if the functioning smoke detectors don’t have a record of regular inspections? He also lists off how “dangerous” the homeless are, with their drug use and past crimes. Yea, they’re fucking homeless. What? You think they all have a squeaky clean record?
Look at the violations he listed and ask yourself how many of those probably apply to your own place of residence. When was the last time you had a fire inspector come and certify that your fire alarms were working? Does your house have fire sprinklers in every room? If you have a propane grill, is the tank stored up to restaurant code, or is it just stored outside on the ground? Do you have a record of when you last replaced the vent tube on your dryer? No? Oh ok. So maybe people aren’t immediately in mortal danger when those codes aren’t followed. And yes, there’s a reason for the codes; but none of them should stand in the way of desperate people seeking shelter from the elements.
There’s always more to the story. I’m not going to say the pastor is entirely blameless as it does sound like the city gave him multiple opportunities to fix violations. But when the fight is between a local government (which are notorious for anti-homeless regulations) throwing out a list of what seem like very nitpicky issues, and a guy literally just trying to give the most downtrodden people a temporary place to sleep and wash their clothes, I’m leaning toward the guy housing people being the one in the right.
How can a building be safe at one point of the day, but suddenly unsafe during another? That sounds like an idiotic code designed to punish exactly this.
In real terms, no, the risks are very low. Far lower than dying exposed in the gutter outside.
In code terms, the laws are based in safety and to keep people from slumlording.
Semi-public sleeping areas need to provide accessible beds, adequate fire alarms/suppression, and sufficient bathroom/sanitation access. Think of it like the requirements to run an actual shelter.
Ideally, this would be a temporary situation, and they’d either relocate the people to somewhere with facilities or, if they intend to run a shelter, properly convert the church.
The actual code this church violated has to do with the plot of land, not the building itself. It has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with the people controlling how others use land they didn’t own.
I mean, we all know the Bible verse: “And so, the people of Bethlehem sent Joseph and the highly pregnant Mary away. They were in the right, since taking them in might have slightly inconvenienced them, and was against zoning regulations, posing a potential fire hazard”