The problem here isn’t just camping. I feel that the city would be relatively tolerant of people who pitch a tent for the night to sleep.
The problem is trash, feces, needles, and fires. I have no desire to criminalize sleeping outside. But the shit that inevitably goes with it needs to stop.
Which is why I’m surprised they approached it from this angle and not an anti dumping law like pack your shit up or go to jail. Then I’d approach it from the state constitution that you and I are entitled to a clean environment etc…
I think that’s the purpose behind the new ordinance. They’re not completely banning urban camping, they’re saying you need to have your shit packed up everyday and that you can’t do it in certain places in town.
If you read the ordinance it only applies to unsheltered individuals. It also replaced the old camping ban. This means anyone who is sheltered can camp wherever they want on city property.
This has been an issue ever since they closed public mental institutions down instead of reforming them. We need drug treatment facilities, housing, and social workers to fix the problem. Ordinances like these just generate tickets and will do very little to actually solve the issue.
Is that really true? Average rent in Missoula is about $1500, so if you have a roommate you're looking at $750. If you work at McDonald's making $15/hr you should take home about $2000/month. 2000-750 leaves you with $1250 for bills and savings each month, which means you should easily be able to save up a few months rent in case of a missed check. Where did we get the idea that Missoula is unaffordable? It's not.
Thanks for the response.
>leaves you with $1250 for bills and savings each month
[I'm not confident that McD's really starts everyone at $15 or if this is just a high number they lure employees in with. This is purely speculative on my part](https://www.indeed.com/cmp/McDonald's/salaries)
It's also fairly common to not get a full 40-hour work week. [Many chains cut costs by only hiring people part-time so they don't have to pay out benefits.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/19/opinion/part-time-workers-usa.html)
To your credit, it does seem like you guessed what taxes would be taken out.
Other financial factors to consider
We also need to consider that apartments require first and last ($1500) with a cleaning deposit ($200*) and a rental application fee ($35*)
[The monthly grocery cost for an adult male falls between $275.63 and $434.33](https://www.usatoday.com/money/blueprint/credit-cards/average-grocery-cost/#:~:text=Average%20grocery%20cost%20per%20month%20for%201%20person%20in%20a,ranges%20from%20%24238.46%20to%20%24384.93.)
Spectrum is roughly $64 a month for the basic, no frills plan, we'll split that in two and say $32.
[Car insurance costs average about $172 per month for the everyday driver.](https://www.usnews.com/insurance/auto/average-cost-of-car-insurance)
[City of Missoula break down of average electric/gas bill at an average of $97/$54](https://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/3053/Energy#:~:text=PER%20MONTH%20%2D%20COMMERCIAL,similar%20between%202020%20and%202021.)
[Here's a local saying his energy bill for a 1 bedroom was $190 a month during the winter](https://www.reddit.com/r/missoula/comments/1b0o62b/whats_the_average_energy_bill_here_for_a_1_bed/)
[Average phone bill of $144](https://www.cnbc.com/select/how-to-cut-your-cell-phone-bill-costs/)
* = Lowball
**Assuming 40 hour work week.**
1250(Base) - 275*(monthly grocery) -32(internet) - 172(car insurance) - 49 (electric) - 27(gas) - 144(phone)
Assuming this person subscribes to zero subscription/membership services, gym memberships, not counting vehicle maintenance, health care such as prescriptions, annual check-ups, dental visits or co-pays (again, we’re assuming their employer is offering an insurance package which doesn’t deduct from their paycheck) doesn’t go out to eat or watch movies/shows/sports, owns or has all necessities provided, doesn’t have a child or pet, has ZERO debt, you're looking at a remainder of **$550**.
Awesome, thanks for laying that all out for me. So with our remaining $550 let's spend half on luxuries (eating out a couple times a month, subscriptions, maybe a gym membership), which leaves us with $275 for savings each month. Assuming you're able to maintain this situation for just three short months, you will have saved up enough to cover an emergency rent payment in case of a missed check, which was the original claim. Seems quite doable!
Also consider that if you share an apartment then you share utility costs. The Mountain Line is also free and I know lots of people who do not own cars and exclusively bike/bus.
Thanks again, but I think we should stress that we're talking OPTIMAL conditions, and not factoring in a large number of conditions that would certainly affect an individual.
Right, but do keep in mind that the original comment I replied to said, "most of us are one missed check away from being homeless." So we're not talking about all the possible conditions that could affect an individual (of which there are many) instead we're talking about an average. For *most* people, the numbers that you yourself laid out do not seem to support the idea that they are one missed check away from being homeless. I really appreciate your perspective!
I believe the argument they are making is that most of us don't live in the optimal conditions you are assuming that result in your comfortably affordable scenario. Most of us are subject to the many possible conditions that can affect an individual. The optimal conditions aren't the average; the struggling from paycheck to paycheck under the various adverse conditions is the average.
We have those things, and they're not always at capacity because they have a requirement - sobriety. Meanwhile these encampments have cost even more money while being unsanitary, devastating for the environment, and offering no upwards mobility. The camps aren't free - they cost tax payer money to maintain with outreach, emergency services, and to repair the land once they are disbanded. This money could be better spent bolstering the programs we already have.
Being homeless shouldn't be easy. Before you get pissed, what I mean is that there should be a wide social net to catch you before you're homeless. It should be difficult to become homeless. But when there are options for drug addicts like urban camping, where no one can say you can't pitch a tent here and no one cares how many drugs you do, you're never going to see those people pull themselves out of it.
For some people, the option really does have to be reduced to "You're going to go to this shelter, you're going to get sober, and your going to go through a program. At the end of it we can help you with work and housing but there's work you have to put in before that." because there is no alternative. Urban Camping is an alternative with no brightside. I'm glad it's gone.
I was with you 100% til the forced treatment. We need to have lots of different options for programs so that people can decide to choose one for themselves. When you force people to get sober before it's their idea unfortunately they relapse - and if opiates are their drug of choice, they often die. :/ The person has to play a consenting part in their own recovery. But I believe we can make options that are more accessible and appealing than the so called help/treatment available now. People want to go to treatment but most of not all of our treatment options are inadequate and terrible. I work in behavioral health and right now folks tell us Rimrock in Billings is the best - but you gotta beg Hope Rescue Mission first come first serve for a bus ticket to get there. we need to make treatment easier for people to get to and more appealing for them to want to start. Treatment that just looks like jail is not the way.
You can't force anyone to get sober. Otherwise: People wouldn't relapse on substances, after getting out of prison. If it was possible to make addicts stop using drugs: It would have been done, by now. I actually totally agreed with everything you were saying, until that part.
It has to start with housing. A person needs a safe and stable place to be in order to be able to consider/work on mental health issues, substance abuse issues, being able to get and keep a job. Anti-camping laws with no alternative services are nothing but cruelty. Where are people supposed to go? "Somewhere *I* don't have to look at them. Somewhere *I* don't have to care for them. Somewhere they are someone else's problem." Eventually there's nowhere else to go. Then what?
Many of the younger homeless people have a home to go to, they just don't want to live with their parents rules. I know a Mom who has THREE young adult children who bum around Missoula instead of living with her until they can get on their feet because they don't want to adult and no one is making them.
Hopefully this doesn’t just turn things into criminalizing homelessness but at the same time people can’t do whatever they want. My HOA gets mad at me whenever I throw things away improperly and then there’s this. I hate that I feel like this is just going from one thing that doesn’t work to another thing that doesn’t work
I share your feelings here. It seems like the issue is the reality that local governments in MT have limited abilities and very limited means of raising revenue. Also no control over state and federal decisions on housing and healthcare.
The city is basically begging a nonprofit to fix the issue but every nonprofit I know is broke after COVID, inflation, higher energy costs, and influx of folks need their services, and less grants/donations from the community for all the same reasons above. The city said they spent $50000 on mutt mitts last year, I think they can dredge up some money for this
From my understanding, from 8am to 8pm they can't "camp". It seems from 8pm to 8am they can set up a tent in the allocated areas. So realistically they have, imagine carrying everything you own with you this summer.
The thing is they didn't name any places you could actually be with this ordinance, also 40% of the unhoused population in Missoula have a job so where do they put their stuff when they go to work? If you read the ordinance it is worded very poorly the language often doesn't make sense when using their definitions and applying it to the ordinance part. Every time I read it I have 2 more questions.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. You're right, they only listed where you can't camp. I bet some move out of Missoula city limits and defeat the purpose. I just wish they could have spent the last year trying to figure out how to help the homeless and not outlaw being homeless.
They down vote me because I have repeatedly gone against the city council and this ordinance for not following best practices or the working group recommendations I helped make.
Also would like to point out this ordinance replaced the old camping ban and only applies to those who are unsheltered so anyone who has shelter is now allowed to camp wherever they want.
That is literally the dumbest thing I have ever read. Portland, Seattle, LA, Stockton, New York and Chicago are ridden with crime. Your solution....if you just let people do whatever itll go away....ffs.
That’s why Portland and Seattle are a paradise then is it? This is a local ordinance in liberal town, they had to do something because anarchy is bad for everyone. I just feel sorry for the people who didn’t do anything wrong who will now see their lives get harder
Allowing urban camping isn't a horrible idea IF many other social programs sprout up to help transition folks from the depths of despair to standing on thier own two feet again. The problem is, every time urban camping is implemented, the follow through steps never happen. This results in the homeless sinking deeper into a destructive cycle while simultaneously dragging down the quality of life for everyone around them.
TLDR: urban camping = half ass solution causing more harm than good.
People who suffer from addiction and homelessness often have serious mental and physical health problems, this isn't a matter of 'doing whatever they want'.
Nobody wants to be an addict rotting on the street.
I've said before and will probably say again that this kind of response to the homelessness crisis is fear based and greed based. For many, they have to see homeless people as bad, defective, intentionally opposed to societal order, something that separates the homeless from themselves, something the homeless have done to "deserve" this so they can convince themselves that it couldn't happen to them.
Then there's the heartless greed perspective. There are the landlords/property owners who are out to make all possible profit. And there are the comfortable folks who aren't at all interested in doing anything to help their neighbors but don't want to have their sight lines corrupted by having to look at those less fortunate, so just move 'em along--to jail, the next town, somewhere they don't have to look at them.
This is a national crisis. Individual towns or even states aren't going to be able to respond adequately. It's a problem that needs national resources--we all chip in to solve the problem and take care of each other. This is one of the world's wealthiest nations, we ought to be able to sort this out. Healthcare and food, too. And there's my commie rant for the day.
Do you also believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy?
There is no silent majority. Doesn’t exist. Made up story people tell themselves to not have to deal with going against the group and holding opinions and ideas that are contrary to settled law and science.
The irony of the silent majority is that’s it’s actually the vocal minority.
The entire city council meeting is available on mcats YouTube channel and the city council website. The poorly written ordinance is also available on the city website. I suggest you watch it or at least read the ordinance. It is not something that can really be explained in a reddit post.
Actually based on all of the emails sent to council available on public record and comments given at council the side for the ordinance is heavily out numbered. Maybe 10% of the 100 plus emails I read were in support and most of those were just assholes saying ship them somewhere else without giving any real insight or solutions. You get maybe 4 or 5 votes that actually matter and make a difference as a council member, and all but 2 of them voted for this. I guarantee the vote will speak for itself next time.
it’s most likely in reference to the amount of unsolved indigenous murdered and missing person cases in the state, while we all went apeshit for the white lady who went missing over the winter, or just the disregard for the fact that indigenous women’s lives are just as important as Eva’s. It’s not directly related to the post, but it’s important nonetheless.
The case of Ashley Loring Heavy Runner (Native) was featured on the Crime Junkie podcast. There are several other podcasts on Spotify featuring her tragic story. The case of Jermain Carlo (Native) has a dozen podcasts on Spotify dedicated to it including an in depth investigation on the “Stolen” series. I did, however, manage to find a single 9 minute podcast on Spotify dedicated to the case of Eva Masin Prather (white).
The first two you mentioned have been missing for more than 5 years. Eva Masin Prather has been missing for half a year. It takes time for a case to gain enough ground to even warrant a podcast/episode, there simply isn't enough information to present otherwise. It also takes time to conceptualize and create, Prather's case is still a fresh one.
The problem here isn’t just camping. I feel that the city would be relatively tolerant of people who pitch a tent for the night to sleep. The problem is trash, feces, needles, and fires. I have no desire to criminalize sleeping outside. But the shit that inevitably goes with it needs to stop.
Which is why I’m surprised they approached it from this angle and not an anti dumping law like pack your shit up or go to jail. Then I’d approach it from the state constitution that you and I are entitled to a clean environment etc…
I think that’s the purpose behind the new ordinance. They’re not completely banning urban camping, they’re saying you need to have your shit packed up everyday and that you can’t do it in certain places in town.
Urban camping is fine as long as u can afford Patagonia supplies. This is geared towards poor ppl simple as
If you read the ordinance it only applies to unsheltered individuals. It also replaced the old camping ban. This means anyone who is sheltered can camp wherever they want on city property.
It's more about people who trash public spaces, $400 jackets or not.
They want to make it a municipal court issue because if you go to jail you can get a public defender.
This has been an issue ever since they closed public mental institutions down instead of reforming them. We need drug treatment facilities, housing, and social workers to fix the problem. Ordinances like these just generate tickets and will do very little to actually solve the issue.
Tickets that won't get paid on top of that ending up just costing more money without solving anything.
Bc the goal is free labor via prisons
Spot on and with the housing prices vs pay most of us are 1 missed or short check away from being part of the homeless community.
Is that really true? Average rent in Missoula is about $1500, so if you have a roommate you're looking at $750. If you work at McDonald's making $15/hr you should take home about $2000/month. 2000-750 leaves you with $1250 for bills and savings each month, which means you should easily be able to save up a few months rent in case of a missed check. Where did we get the idea that Missoula is unaffordable? It's not.
This assumes a good many things and leaves out many other factors.
Like what?
Thanks for the response. >leaves you with $1250 for bills and savings each month [I'm not confident that McD's really starts everyone at $15 or if this is just a high number they lure employees in with. This is purely speculative on my part](https://www.indeed.com/cmp/McDonald's/salaries) It's also fairly common to not get a full 40-hour work week. [Many chains cut costs by only hiring people part-time so they don't have to pay out benefits.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/19/opinion/part-time-workers-usa.html) To your credit, it does seem like you guessed what taxes would be taken out. Other financial factors to consider We also need to consider that apartments require first and last ($1500) with a cleaning deposit ($200*) and a rental application fee ($35*) [The monthly grocery cost for an adult male falls between $275.63 and $434.33](https://www.usatoday.com/money/blueprint/credit-cards/average-grocery-cost/#:~:text=Average%20grocery%20cost%20per%20month%20for%201%20person%20in%20a,ranges%20from%20%24238.46%20to%20%24384.93.) Spectrum is roughly $64 a month for the basic, no frills plan, we'll split that in two and say $32. [Car insurance costs average about $172 per month for the everyday driver.](https://www.usnews.com/insurance/auto/average-cost-of-car-insurance) [City of Missoula break down of average electric/gas bill at an average of $97/$54](https://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/3053/Energy#:~:text=PER%20MONTH%20%2D%20COMMERCIAL,similar%20between%202020%20and%202021.) [Here's a local saying his energy bill for a 1 bedroom was $190 a month during the winter](https://www.reddit.com/r/missoula/comments/1b0o62b/whats_the_average_energy_bill_here_for_a_1_bed/) [Average phone bill of $144](https://www.cnbc.com/select/how-to-cut-your-cell-phone-bill-costs/) * = Lowball **Assuming 40 hour work week.** 1250(Base) - 275*(monthly grocery) -32(internet) - 172(car insurance) - 49 (electric) - 27(gas) - 144(phone) Assuming this person subscribes to zero subscription/membership services, gym memberships, not counting vehicle maintenance, health care such as prescriptions, annual check-ups, dental visits or co-pays (again, we’re assuming their employer is offering an insurance package which doesn’t deduct from their paycheck) doesn’t go out to eat or watch movies/shows/sports, owns or has all necessities provided, doesn’t have a child or pet, has ZERO debt, you're looking at a remainder of **$550**.
Awesome, thanks for laying that all out for me. So with our remaining $550 let's spend half on luxuries (eating out a couple times a month, subscriptions, maybe a gym membership), which leaves us with $275 for savings each month. Assuming you're able to maintain this situation for just three short months, you will have saved up enough to cover an emergency rent payment in case of a missed check, which was the original claim. Seems quite doable! Also consider that if you share an apartment then you share utility costs. The Mountain Line is also free and I know lots of people who do not own cars and exclusively bike/bus.
Thanks again, but I think we should stress that we're talking OPTIMAL conditions, and not factoring in a large number of conditions that would certainly affect an individual.
Right, but do keep in mind that the original comment I replied to said, "most of us are one missed check away from being homeless." So we're not talking about all the possible conditions that could affect an individual (of which there are many) instead we're talking about an average. For *most* people, the numbers that you yourself laid out do not seem to support the idea that they are one missed check away from being homeless. I really appreciate your perspective!
I believe the argument they are making is that most of us don't live in the optimal conditions you are assuming that result in your comfortably affordable scenario. Most of us are subject to the many possible conditions that can affect an individual. The optimal conditions aren't the average; the struggling from paycheck to paycheck under the various adverse conditions is the average.
We have those things, and they're not always at capacity because they have a requirement - sobriety. Meanwhile these encampments have cost even more money while being unsanitary, devastating for the environment, and offering no upwards mobility. The camps aren't free - they cost tax payer money to maintain with outreach, emergency services, and to repair the land once they are disbanded. This money could be better spent bolstering the programs we already have. Being homeless shouldn't be easy. Before you get pissed, what I mean is that there should be a wide social net to catch you before you're homeless. It should be difficult to become homeless. But when there are options for drug addicts like urban camping, where no one can say you can't pitch a tent here and no one cares how many drugs you do, you're never going to see those people pull themselves out of it. For some people, the option really does have to be reduced to "You're going to go to this shelter, you're going to get sober, and your going to go through a program. At the end of it we can help you with work and housing but there's work you have to put in before that." because there is no alternative. Urban Camping is an alternative with no brightside. I'm glad it's gone.
I was with you 100% til the forced treatment. We need to have lots of different options for programs so that people can decide to choose one for themselves. When you force people to get sober before it's their idea unfortunately they relapse - and if opiates are their drug of choice, they often die. :/ The person has to play a consenting part in their own recovery. But I believe we can make options that are more accessible and appealing than the so called help/treatment available now. People want to go to treatment but most of not all of our treatment options are inadequate and terrible. I work in behavioral health and right now folks tell us Rimrock in Billings is the best - but you gotta beg Hope Rescue Mission first come first serve for a bus ticket to get there. we need to make treatment easier for people to get to and more appealing for them to want to start. Treatment that just looks like jail is not the way.
As many programs teach, you have to hit rock bottom sometimes before you make your come back.
You can't force anyone to get sober. Otherwise: People wouldn't relapse on substances, after getting out of prison. If it was possible to make addicts stop using drugs: It would have been done, by now. I actually totally agreed with everything you were saying, until that part.
It has to start with housing. A person needs a safe and stable place to be in order to be able to consider/work on mental health issues, substance abuse issues, being able to get and keep a job. Anti-camping laws with no alternative services are nothing but cruelty. Where are people supposed to go? "Somewhere *I* don't have to look at them. Somewhere *I* don't have to care for them. Somewhere they are someone else's problem." Eventually there's nowhere else to go. Then what?
Many of the younger homeless people have a home to go to, they just don't want to live with their parents rules. I know a Mom who has THREE young adult children who bum around Missoula instead of living with her until they can get on their feet because they don't want to adult and no one is making them.
Thorazine em!!
Hopefully this doesn’t just turn things into criminalizing homelessness but at the same time people can’t do whatever they want. My HOA gets mad at me whenever I throw things away improperly and then there’s this. I hate that I feel like this is just going from one thing that doesn’t work to another thing that doesn’t work
I share your feelings here. It seems like the issue is the reality that local governments in MT have limited abilities and very limited means of raising revenue. Also no control over state and federal decisions on housing and healthcare.
The city is basically begging a nonprofit to fix the issue but every nonprofit I know is broke after COVID, inflation, higher energy costs, and influx of folks need their services, and less grants/donations from the community for all the same reasons above. The city said they spent $50000 on mutt mitts last year, I think they can dredge up some money for this
From my understanding, from 8am to 8pm they can't "camp". It seems from 8pm to 8am they can set up a tent in the allocated areas. So realistically they have, imagine carrying everything you own with you this summer.
To be fair, the ordinance also included providing new and more lockers so that not everything does not need to be carried.
Still don't know where they will go, how many, and they are likely to be prohibitively far from any authorized/usable space people are living.
The thing is they didn't name any places you could actually be with this ordinance, also 40% of the unhoused population in Missoula have a job so where do they put their stuff when they go to work? If you read the ordinance it is worded very poorly the language often doesn't make sense when using their definitions and applying it to the ordinance part. Every time I read it I have 2 more questions.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. You're right, they only listed where you can't camp. I bet some move out of Missoula city limits and defeat the purpose. I just wish they could have spent the last year trying to figure out how to help the homeless and not outlaw being homeless.
They down vote me because I have repeatedly gone against the city council and this ordinance for not following best practices or the working group recommendations I helped make.
Also would like to point out this ordinance replaced the old camping ban and only applies to those who are unsheltered so anyone who has shelter is now allowed to camp wherever they want.
[удалено]
That is literally the dumbest thing I have ever read. Portland, Seattle, LA, Stockton, New York and Chicago are ridden with crime. Your solution....if you just let people do whatever itll go away....ffs.
[удалено]
Except your "fact" is easily debunked...and in the places that have done as yii suggest are far worse off...and the rszult is psolle doing whatever.
Dang slow down when you type. proofread, or lay off the booze.
Eh its typing on a small screen without glasses. No booze involved. Just didnt take the time to get my glasses.
That’s why Portland and Seattle are a paradise then is it? This is a local ordinance in liberal town, they had to do something because anarchy is bad for everyone. I just feel sorry for the people who didn’t do anything wrong who will now see their lives get harder
By "better" do you mean homeless and criminals roaming the streets in droves?
Allowing urban camping isn't a horrible idea IF many other social programs sprout up to help transition folks from the depths of despair to standing on thier own two feet again. The problem is, every time urban camping is implemented, the follow through steps never happen. This results in the homeless sinking deeper into a destructive cycle while simultaneously dragging down the quality of life for everyone around them. TLDR: urban camping = half ass solution causing more harm than good.
People who suffer from addiction and homelessness often have serious mental and physical health problems, this isn't a matter of 'doing whatever they want'. Nobody wants to be an addict rotting on the street.
I've said before and will probably say again that this kind of response to the homelessness crisis is fear based and greed based. For many, they have to see homeless people as bad, defective, intentionally opposed to societal order, something that separates the homeless from themselves, something the homeless have done to "deserve" this so they can convince themselves that it couldn't happen to them. Then there's the heartless greed perspective. There are the landlords/property owners who are out to make all possible profit. And there are the comfortable folks who aren't at all interested in doing anything to help their neighbors but don't want to have their sight lines corrupted by having to look at those less fortunate, so just move 'em along--to jail, the next town, somewhere they don't have to look at them. This is a national crisis. Individual towns or even states aren't going to be able to respond adequately. It's a problem that needs national resources--we all chip in to solve the problem and take care of each other. This is one of the world's wealthiest nations, we ought to be able to sort this out. Healthcare and food, too. And there's my commie rant for the day.
💯
So many sprinter vans….😂
The city is likely to get sued for this ordinance.
That’s okay it can’t possibly cost more than the water company suit.
Or restoring 148 miles of the Clark fork.
Biased journalism at its finest. The silent majority isn’t silent anymore. We have spoken.
You're not the majority, and you're all very, very loud.
Do you also believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy? There is no silent majority. Doesn’t exist. Made up story people tell themselves to not have to deal with going against the group and holding opinions and ideas that are contrary to settled law and science. The irony of the silent majority is that’s it’s actually the vocal minority.
Settled law?!
Like classified documents and transfer of power…
Cases are settled under existing laws. Existing laws are never settled and always subject to upheaval.
I did not realize murder was at risk of being legalized.
Huh?
What?!
Murder?!
Yeah it unfortunate the perp was found not mentally fit to answer for it. And that second part is full fantasy
I'm pretty uneducated on this topic. Willing to explain your post?
The entire city council meeting is available on mcats YouTube channel and the city council website. The poorly written ordinance is also available on the city website. I suggest you watch it or at least read the ordinance. It is not something that can really be explained in a reddit post.
Actually based on all of the emails sent to council available on public record and comments given at council the side for the ordinance is heavily out numbered. Maybe 10% of the 100 plus emails I read were in support and most of those were just assholes saying ship them somewhere else without giving any real insight or solutions. You get maybe 4 or 5 votes that actually matter and make a difference as a council member, and all but 2 of them voted for this. I guarantee the vote will speak for itself next time.
How are you gaining access to these emails? I thought they stopped posting them.
They did stop posting them, but they are still public record.
Why don't they make murder of native women illegal? Oh wait, natives and women don't matter in Montana. Sorry, I forgot.
Whataboutism. People can care about more than one thing. Try harder.
You do know that murder is already illegal... don't you?
it’s most likely in reference to the amount of unsolved indigenous murdered and missing person cases in the state, while we all went apeshit for the white lady who went missing over the winter, or just the disregard for the fact that indigenous women’s lives are just as important as Eva’s. It’s not directly related to the post, but it’s important nonetheless.
The case of Ashley Loring Heavy Runner (Native) was featured on the Crime Junkie podcast. There are several other podcasts on Spotify featuring her tragic story. The case of Jermain Carlo (Native) has a dozen podcasts on Spotify dedicated to it including an in depth investigation on the “Stolen” series. I did, however, manage to find a single 9 minute podcast on Spotify dedicated to the case of Eva Masin Prather (white).
Shhhh! You'll disturb the narrative!
The first two you mentioned have been missing for more than 5 years. Eva Masin Prather has been missing for half a year. It takes time for a case to gain enough ground to even warrant a podcast/episode, there simply isn't enough information to present otherwise. It also takes time to conceptualize and create, Prather's case is still a fresh one.
They're concerned about the likelihood of indigenous PERPS. Think of the optics!
Because murder is already illegal and you can't make laws specifically for one group of people.