[LarryMullins]

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.

[Spooky23]

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.

[yellowapple]

> I seriously doubt paying them off even could work. Why would they not take the payment then do it anyway?

Because then they wouldn't get paid more later.

[ablatt89]

No it does not, bullies and criminals are not seeking to optimize their cash flow. I know this is just for squigees and other petty annoyances, but it's a slippery slope to paying people to just not commit crimes.

Have you lived in the ghetto or in extremely poor neighborhoods? I grew up in Oakland, Modesto, and Fresno, with gang banging friends and having to deal with these other gangsters not in your crew, who would like nothing more than to beat you up, steal your cash, and brag to their friends about commit their crimes. Those who commit crimes will commit crimes on the whim, jump you and cash, and never once have foresight on how their present actions have future consequences.

Empower bullies and lowlifes, and they'll continuously pick on you and bully you and others.

[yellowapple]

> Have you lived in the ghetto or in extremely poor neighborhoods?

Yes.

> Those who commit crimes will commit crimes on the whim

The vast majority of the time, that "whim" is "I need cash to buy dinner". This is especially true of people squeegeeing cars.

I would much rather see full-fledged safety nets like UBI, but paying people such that they are no longer dependent on nuisance or outright crime for survival is a start.

[ALittleLight]

Yes, they would. Unless you're also proposing some enforcement mechanism where you detect defectors. But, if you could reliably detect them, why not just stop them?

[LarryMullins]

Unless the police are out there chasing them down and establishing an arrest record to show they previously lied, why would they be denied payments in the future?

[lmm]

People in that situation usually have a high time preference.

[Barrin92]

>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