Comment on This is crazy. Why don't you just take their car ?
purplemonkeymad@programming.dev 1 week agoI don’t necessarily disagree with your point. But:
Is the state going to provide shuttles to get these people groceries and to and from work? Who pays for that?
Typically most places call these buses.
I think that most of your point could be alleviated with more and better public transport. Then removal can be a realistic punishment without preventing people from living.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Buses cost money to run, and rural upstate New York (just like a lot of rural areas that are car dependant) do not necessarily have the infrastructure to implement them. Which is exactly why I said shuttles, not buses.
Public transit isn’t going to pop out of the ether to fix the problem so that we can just take away people’s personal property because they broke the law as if they no longer own it. Civil forfeiture is already a broken law without us making it worse for poor people while rich people continue to get a pass.
They’ll buy new vehicles. You can legally purchase a car without a driver’s license in most states. You just have to have someone who can legally drive it off the lot of deliver it. Which is simple for a rich person, but not for a poor person.
Like it could be if we were willing to spend the amount of money it would cost to build and upkeep that infrastructure. But that would also likely mean civil forfeiture of land. Because bus stops and side walks and depots don’t just show up because you want to take people’s cars away.
The cost of all that, plus the cost of implementing the ability to store or sell these vehicles is going to be problematic and more costly than the proposal, which is more fair than the alternative because it treats people regardless of the economic situation the same.
I don’t like the proposal, but I can certainly understand why it’s being proposed as a better way to fix the problem.