Extortion. "Squeegy kids" use the implicit threat of violence against you or your car to extort payment from drivers. The "service" they provide is worse than worthless, they make your car filthy. They're an absolute menace.
I don't see why cities should have to resort to paying them off. They surely violate numerous laws with their scheme, anything from doing business without a license to jaywalking. But of course to enforce such laws you need cops to chase them down and arrest them in broad daylight, which risks bad optics for the city if the cops get too overzealous. Still, better policing is the correct answer.
I seriously doubt paying them off even could work. Why would they not take the payment then do it anyway? You'd still need cops to arrest them to know which didn't stay true to the agreement.
It’s just an example of spineless politicians pandering to a whiny people and unable to manage the police force.
In my city we’ve become inundated with sad sack beggars at intersections. Many of them are part of organized rings of hustlers. Our mayor wants to respect their feeling or whatever and police are not allowed to engage them. In one case, there was a full on brawl on an exit ramp between rival groups before the cops were cleared to break it up.
>I don't see why cities should have to resort to paying them off.
you're always paying someone. You can enact punitive and harsh measures and put kids and teenagers into the justice system where they'll cost 10x as much if not more including in their adulthood, or you can draw a baseline in and simply pay them enough money to not resort to this quasi-begging. Couple this with an attendance requirement to go to school and you're probably saving yourself countless of dollars so I don't really see the issue.
It's basically analogous to war on drugs type policies. Instead of just providing addicts with clean needles and drugs you spent ten times as much and wasting police resources on chasing harmless people around. It's moralizing instead of effective policy
LarryMullins|3 years ago
I don't see why cities should have to resort to paying them off. They surely violate numerous laws with their scheme, anything from doing business without a license to jaywalking. But of course to enforce such laws you need cops to chase them down and arrest them in broad daylight, which risks bad optics for the city if the cops get too overzealous. Still, better policing is the correct answer.
I seriously doubt paying them off even could work. Why would they not take the payment then do it anyway? You'd still need cops to arrest them to know which didn't stay true to the agreement.
Spooky23|3 years ago
In my city we’ve become inundated with sad sack beggars at intersections. Many of them are part of organized rings of hustlers. Our mayor wants to respect their feeling or whatever and police are not allowed to engage them. In one case, there was a full on brawl on an exit ramp between rival groups before the cops were cleared to break it up.
yellowapple|3 years ago
Because then they wouldn't get paid more later.
Barrin92|3 years ago
you're always paying someone. You can enact punitive and harsh measures and put kids and teenagers into the justice system where they'll cost 10x as much if not more including in their adulthood, or you can draw a baseline in and simply pay them enough money to not resort to this quasi-begging. Couple this with an attendance requirement to go to school and you're probably saving yourself countless of dollars so I don't really see the issue.
It's basically analogous to war on drugs type policies. Instead of just providing addicts with clean needles and drugs you spent ten times as much and wasting police resources on chasing harmless people around. It's moralizing instead of effective policy