[kstenerud]

A simple fine or some other existing punishment would have sufficed. The legal system has had the tools to deal with rule breakers for centuries already.

Cutting off water and electricity for order violations sets a very bad precedent, and is highly irresponsible. I'm shocked that it's even legal to do so.

[DoreenMichele]

They got multiple warnings.

This is kind of like that Bruce Willis movie scene where his wife tries to say her affair with his best friend was "an accident" and he says something like "Whoops! I fell down and my dick accidentally ended up in your wife."

If you don't want your water cut off, don't invite your 200 closest friends over during a pandemic, two weeks after they announced this was a potential consequence and after the police have previously visited your house and warned you in specific. Duh.

[kstenerud]

I'm just waiting for the HN response to a news article in a few years where this practice has expanded to the point that an elderly couple dies of dehydration and heat exhaustion after the city cuts off their power and water for failing to properly maintain the sidewalk out front.

This power & water cutoff thing was originally introduced in 2019 to combat unauthorized commercial cannabis farming as an alternative to criminal charges (which is not terrible because no human basic needs are being withheld in a commercial context).

Now suddenly it's being expanded to combat residential ordinance violations, which is a quantum leap in bad ideas. I'm surprised that nobody sees the problem here, especially the enlightened HN crowd. It's not like there haven't been sufficient tools to deal with property nuisances & safety violations for hundreds of years in ways that are effective against both rich and poor, and especially not tools that can lead to such terrible consequences for the poor as we slide down this slippery slope.

[dragonwriter]

> It's not like there haven't been sufficient tools to deal with property nuisances & safety violations for hundreds of years in ways that are effective against both rich and poor, and especially not tools that can lead to such terrible consequences for the poor as we slide down this slippery slope.

Uh, the main existing tool for property nuisances is forfeiture. While in this specific case I would enthusiastically support the use of that tool, I don't think it's a more modest or restrained response than what has been given.

It's like arguing “we've authorized use of guns for this problem for centuries, why are we taking the extreme step of bringing out a taser?”

[DoreenMichele]

I've actually had a couple of law classes and worked in an environment where legal stuff drove a lot of stuff at the company.

I think this is one of those situations where you want to survive this situation well enough to have (the threat of) the sorts of problems down the road that you are worried about rather than having worse problems because so many people died in the pandemic that the fabric of society has fallen apart and some of the rich people with bunkers in New Zealand are hunkering down there while the not rich remain stranded in what is left of the US.

[kstenerud]

I don't get it... what's the problem with using existing tools, such as bringing criminal charges against these people? That's within the law already, and people in jail can't throw house parties.

[dragonwriter]

> I don't get it... what's the problem with using existing tools, such as bringing criminal charges against these people?

This is an existing tool, and it's one that the occupants were warned would be used if they continued their violations.

Criminal charges are slower, and don't do as much to stop the immediate threat without custodial arrest and pretrial confinement, either in jail, which itself is a public health issue, especially when high-risk transmission behavir is involved, or in separate isolation (which IIRC is available for public health order violations but is manpower intensive.)

[DoreenMichele]

They are letting people out of prison in a lot of places who haven't committed violent/serious crimes because the prisons are a breeding ground for disease in a scenario like this, the prisons are overwhelmed, the hospitals are overwhelmed, etc.

I also see that as a vastly worse legal precedent than shutting off your water to deter disease-spreading large gatherings. That's a great way to make sure we can throw lots and lots of poor people in jail -- just as soon as the pandemic is over the our jails aren't overwhelmed as a matter of course.

[kstenerud]

I think you may have misunderstood. The tools of increasing fines and criminal charges (resulting in jail time or not) have existed for decades already, and are proven in the field to be effective. This is nothing new. There's also nothing stopping the courts from deferring a jail term until the pandemic has passed.

[m463]

Hollywood hills. Would fines have worked? This might just be creative enforcement.

(To be honest I wonder if shutting off power will work... can they just get a generator or set up tiki torches?)

oh and new business idea: powerbnb

[Fragoel2]

For people who glaringly have too much money to even care about it is a fine really a punishment?

[donw]

It is if you scale the fine based on their income.

Also, an idea: rather than handing fines and fees to the government -- which incentivizes all kinds of bad behavior, from civil forfeiture to crazy permitting laws -- you stick it in a general fund, and hand it back -- evenly distributed -- to the taxpayer as a dividend at the end of the year.

Do that for every bit of revenue that government makes outside of collecting taxes.

I'm curious where this falls down (outside of implementation difficulties).

[true_religion]

People will start voting for laws that are applied inconsistently on outsiders or minorities in order to enrich themselves.

Imagine a town where the police always ticket passing cars for 1000 dollars per violation, except when the car belongs to a town member in good standing in which case they just give a warning.

[dragonwriter]

> It is if you scale the fine based on their income.

Income scaled fines are not existing legal tools.

[oliwarner]

Simple fines and even protracted legal disputes mean very little to the rich, who can largely do whatever the hell they like if they can pay for it.

Direct action against a property makes it much harder for them to continue.

[Pungsnigel]

Is it even legal?

[threeseed]

Yes it is legal. Here is the motion:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/davidryucc/pages/2849/...

[apple4ever]

That doesn't mean it actual is legal. There are state and federal laws, not to mention the state and federal constitutions, that have higher precedence.

[arvinsim]

Maybe we ought to change our laws to account for the super rich who can just bypass most penalties using their wealth or connections.

[kstenerud]

The existing legal framework provides for increasing fines and even criminal charges for repeated violations, and has already been successfully used against rich and poor alike for noise, fire & safety, occupancy rules etc. There's absolutely no need for new "tools" to deal with this. Any calls for additional powers should be viewed with extreme suspicion and scepticism.

[me_me_me]

I remember listening to some podcast, it was something about inequality or etc doesn't matter.

As part of it this woman was to interview some rich guy.

He offered to do it over a dinner and picked her up in his lambo.

When they arrived there was no free space so he parked in the disabled space. When she mentioned that to him he replied.

"Don't worry its a $400 parking space"

The thing is he is not wrong.

There are myriad of stories of companies making millions cheating and when caught paying thousands in fines.

Thats not a deterrent but attractor of bad behaviour.

The fines meant to be fines - something that stings and burns - and not get out of jail free for one's who can afford it.

[kstenerud]

This is why repeated violations of the more serious ordinances can result in criminal charges. It's not so easy to shrug off a criminal conviction, possible jail time, and a criminal record. Criminal fines don't have the same limits as civil fines. Judges can make it really hurt.

[me_me_me]

Yeah, you tell yourself that.