Seattle is dying

[Flopper]

Republicans hate large cities because they are predominately democrat. There are no cities with a population over a million that are mostly republican and only 4 of the 40 largest cities. Cities like Abliene, Junction City, or Mountain Home don't have homeless people in their parks because the only parks they have are ball fields. There's no reason for a homeless person or most anyone else to be there. Big cities have big problems because they have lots of people and high population densities.

I have lived in Mountain Home and my grandparents lived in Seattle for years and my son worked for the city for awhile.
Seattle's relatively large safety net is a magnet. It's that simple.

Lots of parks are a feature of Washington and the sane eastern side of the state is filled with parks also.
Fortunately for them they are considered not hip enough to attract the sorts of people who become homeless once
they arrive in town.

The idea that a safety net in a city provides a magnet is true only to a very limited extent. Most homeless in Seattle and other large cities come from zip codes that are either in the city or in surrounding areas. There are several studies that confirm this. A study was conducted in 2016 in Seattle in which the homeless were surveyed. Asked where they came from before they were homeless, 86% listed a zip code in the Seattle area. 6% listed a zip code somewhere else in the state. The remainder either came from out of state or refused to answer or could not provide the information.

A study in Michigan and Iowa found that most of the homeless in the cities became homeless in those cities or in the suburbs. Most of the remainder came from other cities within the state.

Many conservatives support the idea of social services in big cities are magnet for the nations homeless because almost all the large cities are controlled by democrats. The truth is the homeless do not travel around the country looking for the best place to settle. The primary reason is travel to new areas are very difficult for the homeless and mostly lack any form of transportation and little or no money for traveling. Secondly and probably more important the homeless are very reluctant to leave an area they know. Simple things such as a mailing address, a way to be contacted by phone, locations of safe places to sleep and leave your stuff, getting a state id card, finding a place to cash checks, registering for social services etc.. are big problems for the homeless in a new city. If you're homeless knowledge of a new area usually comes from the school of hard knocks.

Where are the homeless coming from? They’re mostly from here, service providers say
Where Do Homeless People Come From? | Center for Evidence-based Solutions to Homelessness

 

[GWV5903]

KOMO News Special: Seattle is Dying


Unrestricted migration lousy leadership
Everything libs touch

Tough reality is not part of a Liberal agenda, how we sink deeper into denial...

They’re destined too fail with this mentality, and they want to tell you President Trump has no idea what he’s doing with the wall at our Southern Border? This is a case in point that clearly demonstrates why you should enforce the laws...

So you think that poor management is called liberalism? You are way off course son...

Yes, reality is rarely a liberals strong suit, I was very clear...

Do you think Seattle is run by Conservatives?

 

[Flopper]

KOMO News Special: Seattle is Dying


Unrestricted migration lousy leadership
Everything libs touch

Tough reality is not part of a Liberal agenda, how we sink deeper into denial...

They’re destined too fail with this mentality, and they want to tell you President Trump has no idea what he’s doing with the wall at our Southern Border? This is a case in point that clearly demonstrates why you should enforce the laws...

So you think that poor management is called liberalism? You are way off course son...

Yes, reality is rarely a liberals strong suit, I was very clear...

Do you think Seattle is run by Conservatives?

None of our largest cities are run by conservatives. I think statistically it's only 4 of our 40 largest cities, none with population over a million. The reason is they have no solution for problems in big cities so they stick to suburbs and smaller towns where they don't have to deal with real problems such as homelessness, poverty, crime, pollution, gridlock, and urban sprawl.

 

[Moonglow]

KOMO News Special: Seattle is Dying


Unrestricted migration lousy leadership
Everything libs touch

Tough reality is not part of a Liberal agenda, how we sink deeper into denial...

They’re destined too fail with this mentality, and they want to tell you President Trump has no idea what he’s doing with the wall at our Southern Border? This is a case in point that clearly demonstrates why you should enforce the laws...

So you think that poor management is called liberalism? You are way off course son...

Yes, reality is rarely a liberals strong suit, I was very clear...

Do you think Seattle is run by Conservatives?

Surely they are not conservatives if they believe in some liberal tenets...

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Democrat control has turned Denver into a giant shithole.

It's Invasion of the Body Snatchers type stuff. A lot of leftists who moved out of LA and Southern California because they have absolutely turned it into a Calucutta type disaster area have moved on to Denver.
The leftist diaspora has also gone into Texas but I doubt Houston or Austin will ever be as bad as Portland or Denver.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The idea that a safety net in a city provides a magnet is true only to a very limited extent. Most homeless in Seattle and other large cities come from zip codes that are either in the city or in surrounding areas. There are several studies that confirm this. A study was conducted in 2016 in Seattle in which the homeless were surveyed. Asked where they came from before they were homeless, 86% listed a zip code in the Seattle area. 6% listed a zip code somewhere else in the state. The remainder either came from out of state or refused to answer or could not provide the information.

Seattle is a large metropolitan area surrounded by sizable suburbs. The magnet doesn't have to pull someone in from Idaho or Nevada to be a contributing factor in the city's homeless problem.

 

[Flopper]

The idea that a safety net in a city provides a magnet is true only to a very limited extent. Most homeless in Seattle and other large cities come from zip codes that are either in the city or in surrounding areas. There are several studies that confirm this. A study was conducted in 2016 in Seattle in which the homeless were surveyed. Asked where they came from before they were homeless, 86% listed a zip code in the Seattle area. 6% listed a zip code somewhere else in the state. The remainder either came from out of state or refused to answer or could not provide the information.

Seattle is a large metropolitan area surrounded by sizable suburbs. The magnet doesn't have to pull someone in from Idaho or Nevada to be a contributing factor in the city's homeless problem.

Most of the same social welfare programs are available in the surrounding cities of Everett and Tacoma as well in smaller cities in the area. The concern for the homeless does not end at the Seattle city limits.

Frankly, I don't see Seattle as a magnet for the homeless, despite the tent cities. The Seattle area is a horrible place to have to live outdoors. About 2 out 3 days, the weather is either rainy, cloudy, and cold. Although we don't have lot of snow, it does snow, and sleet. Seattle is best suited for people that have good jobs which can provide enough money to meet Seattle's cost of living. The cost of a lunch in downtown Seattle has more than doubled in the last 7 years. Just a simple hamburger will cost you $7 or more. Discount stores like Walmart, Target, Costco are found in the suburbs not the city because real estate is too expense. Just renting a cheap room in Seattle is likely to cost $600 to $700 a month. Even hotels that are dumps are likely to cost $80 or $90 a night. Despite all the hoopla about free shelter for the homeless, which is neither free nor available, I think there are a number of cities where I would rather be homeless than Seattle. It's a beautiful and fun place to live provided you have a job and a place to live.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Most of the same social welfare programs are available in the surrounding cities of Everett and Tacoma as well in smaller cities in the area. The concern for the homeless does not end at the Seattle city limits.

Frankly, I don't see Seattle as a magnet for the homeless, despite the tent cities. The Seattle area is a horrible place to have to live outdoors. About 2 out 3 days, the weather is either rainy, cloudy, and cold. Although we don't have lot of snow, it does snow, and sleet. Seattle is best suited for people that have good jobs which can provide enough money to meet Seattle's cost of living. The cost of a lunch in downtown Seattle has more than doubled in the last 7 years. Just a simple hamburger will cost you $7 or more. Discount stores like Walmart, Target, Costco are found in the suburbs not the city because real estate is too expense. Just renting a cheap room in Seattle is likely to cost $600 to $700 a month. Even hotels that are dumps are likely to cost $80 or $90 a night. Despite all the hoopla about free shelter for the homeless, which is neither free nor available, I think there are a number of cities where I would rather be homeless than Seattle. It's a beautiful and fun place to live provided you have a job and a place to live.

Undoubtedly I would rather be homeless in LA or Sand Diego than Seattle. And just as undoubtedly, Seattle nonetheless manages to host lots of homeless people.
Maybe the city council should start a program where homeless people are given bus tickets and a twenty dollar bill to California (to be collected on arrival).

 

[Uncensored2008]

KOMO News Special: Seattle is Dying


Unrestricted migration lousy leadership
Everything libs touch

Tough reality is not part of a Liberal agenda, how we sink deeper into denial...

They’re destined too fail with this mentality, and they want to tell you President Trump has no idea what he’s doing with the wall at our Southern Border? This is a case in point that clear demonstrates why you should enforce the laws...

Who is arguing against enforcing the laws? You guys just make this shit up. Or just buy the latest Hannity episode. Vote reps in that will change immigration laws and amend The Constitution.

Lie much?

 

[Flopper]

Most of the same social welfare programs are available in the surrounding cities of Everett and Tacoma as well in smaller cities in the area. The concern for the homeless does not end at the Seattle city limits.

Frankly, I don't see Seattle as a magnet for the homeless, despite the tent cities. The Seattle area is a horrible place to have to live outdoors. About 2 out 3 days, the weather is either rainy, cloudy, and cold. Although we don't have lot of snow, it does snow, and sleet. Seattle is best suited for people that have good jobs which can provide enough money to meet Seattle's cost of living. The cost of a lunch in downtown Seattle has more than doubled in the last 7 years. Just a simple hamburger will cost you $7 or more. Discount stores like Walmart, Target, Costco are found in the suburbs not the city because real estate is too expense. Just renting a cheap room in Seattle is likely to cost $600 to $700 a month. Even hotels that are dumps are likely to cost $80 or $90 a night. Despite all the hoopla about free shelter for the homeless, which is neither free nor available, I think there are a number of cities where I would rather be homeless than Seattle. It's a beautiful and fun place to live provided you have a job and a place to live.

Undoubtedly I would rather be homeless in LA or Sand Diego than Seattle. And just as undoubtedly, Seattle nonetheless manages to host lots of homeless people.
Maybe the city council should start a program where homeless people are given bus tickets and a twenty dollar bill to California (to be collected on arrival).

In my home town, the police did that less the 50 dollars but that was over 50 years ago. You can't get away with that today, at least not for long.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

In my home town, the police did that less the 50 dollars but that was over 50 years ago. You can't get away with that today, at least not for long.

Okay. Then up the ante. If sanctuary cities can reward illegals for breaking our laws (by giving them hiding places and taxpayer financed social services) then surely it's fair game to pay the homeless to go to California.

 

[Flopper]

In my home town, the police did that less the 50 dollars but that was over 50 years ago. You can't get away with that today, at least not for long.

Okay. Then up the ante. If sanctuary cities can reward illegals for breaking our laws (by giving them hiding places and taxpayer financed social services) then surely it's fair game to pay the homeless to go to California.

Sanctuary City isn’t a legal term, interpretations vary. Broadly, people use it to describe cities with policies and practices that limit local involvement in immigration enforcement. Narrowly, people sometimes use it to describe cities that don’t cooperate with immigration agents, or reject federal requests to detain undocumented immigrants.

This does not mean they provide hiding places are any special services not available to other residents of the city. It simply means the city is not going to enforce immigration laws because that's not their responsibility. Sanctuary-city policies don’t stop local authorities from arresting and prosecuting undocumented immigrants for non-immigration crimes.

In Seattle just as in all other cities, undocumented immigrants aren’t safe from deportation. Even when cities sit on the sidelines, federal agents can carry out their work. Federal agents can arrest people in Seattle and any other so-called sanctuary city. But we’re not going to have Seattle police out there arresting people for immigration violations. The police have a job to do that does not include doing the job of the federal government. The whole notion is that we don’t use local resources to do the job of the federal government.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Sanctuary City isn’t a legal term, interpretations vary. Broadly, people use it to describe cities with policies and practices that limit local involvement in immigration enforcement. Narrowly, people sometimes use it to describe cities that don’t cooperate with immigration agents, or reject federal requests to detain undocumented immigrants.

This does not mean they provide hiding places are any special services not available to other residents of the city. It simply means the city is not going to enforce immigration laws because that's not their responsibility. Sanctuary-city policies don’t stop local authorities from arresting and prosecuting undocumented immigrants for non-immigration crimes.

In Seattle just as in all other cities, undocumented immigrants aren’t safe from deportation. Even when cities sit on the sidelines, federal agents can carry out their work. Federal agents can arrest people in Seattle and any other so-called sanctuary city. But we’re not going to have Seattle police out there arresting people for immigration violations. The police have a job to do that does not include doing the job of the federal government. The whole notion is that we don’t use local resources to do the job of the federal government.

The idea that people would actually think it's proper and a good idea for the City Council of Seattle and all city officials to do the work of ICE agents or other federal immigration agents is ridiculous. No one thinks or expects that.

Of course it behooves advocates of sanctuary cities to pretend this is the case so when they refuse to have anything to do with halting illegal immigrants and illegal immigration itself they have this ready made rationalization handy to justify what it is they are actually doing...which is aiding people who are committing a crime and robbing our nation of precious resources.

A crime that costs taxpayers literally over one hundred billion dollars every single year. That's money that could go towards rebuilding roads and bridges. That could pay for health clinics or go towards educational investment. Or shelter to alleviate our homeless crisis.

But instead that money goes to illegal immigrants and the resources their presence here demands. Special schooling for their children. Health care. Social services. Clogging up the justice and prison system, etc.

Sanctuary cities and the people that manage them are no better or different that the governors of Jim Crow states who simply decided they didn't like integration so they would just ignore the laws they didn't wish to follow. An ala carte system of laws: I will follow those laws over there. I will not follow that law over there.
Sanctuary policy is wrong for that reason alone. It undermines confidence and belief in our laws and makes a mockery of them. That effect is deleterious, to say the least.

I'm afraid it does mean that sanctuary states like California, Oregon or Washington are providing special services to assist the people that migrate to sanctuary destinations. I already mentioned the cost of teaching non English speaking children an entirely different and special curriculum and the teachers and books, etc. needed to do so.

California, for example, has a tax payer funded auto insurance program so illegals, who get driver's licenses despite being in the country illegally (another special service provided), can get low cost auto insurance (subsidized by taxpaying citizens, as already mentioned).

Seattle is indeed offering a hiding place for criminals and that's just what sanctuary is. In the county where I used to live I saw the dual system of law enforcement as zoning laws were enforced one way for illegals and another way for everyone else. Multiple families were crammed into single family homes and businesses such as auto repair providers were operated in front yards and streets turning neighborhoods into auto wrecking and repair shops.
Environmental laws were absolutely ignored and discarded oil would pool in gutters and flown down drains straight down to the river that flowed eventually into the San Francisco bay and the ocean itself.

Sorry I don't see it your way at all.

 

[Flopper]

Sanctuary City isn’t a legal term, interpretations vary. Broadly, people use it to describe cities with policies and practices that limit local involvement in immigration enforcement. Narrowly, people sometimes use it to describe cities that don’t cooperate with immigration agents, or reject federal requests to detain undocumented immigrants.

This does not mean they provide hiding places are any special services not available to other residents of the city. It simply means the city is not going to enforce immigration laws because that's not their responsibility. Sanctuary-city policies don’t stop local authorities from arresting and prosecuting undocumented immigrants for non-immigration crimes.

In Seattle just as in all other cities, undocumented immigrants aren’t safe from deportation. Even when cities sit on the sidelines, federal agents can carry out their work. Federal agents can arrest people in Seattle and any other so-called sanctuary city. But we’re not going to have Seattle police out there arresting people for immigration violations. The police have a job to do that does not include doing the job of the federal government. The whole notion is that we don’t use local resources to do the job of the federal government.

The idea that people would actually think it's proper and a good idea for the City Council of Seattle and all city officials to do the work of ICE agents or other federal immigration agents is ridiculous. No one thinks or expects that.

Of course it behooves advocates of sanctuary cities to pretend this is the case so when they refuse to have anything to do with halting illegal immigrants and illegal immigration itself they have this ready made rationalization handy to justify what it is they are actually doing...which is aiding people who are committing a crime and robbing our nation of precious resources.

A crime that costs taxpayers literally over one hundred billion dollars every single year. That's money that could go towards rebuilding roads and bridges. That could pay for health clinics or go towards educational investment. Or shelter to alleviate our homeless crisis.

But instead that money goes to illegal immigrants and the resources their presence here demands. Special schooling for their children. Health care. Social services. Clogging up the justice and prison system, etc.

Sanctuary cities and the people that manage them are no better or different that the governors of Jim Crow states who simply decided they didn't like integration so they would just ignore the laws they didn't wish to follow. An ala carte system of laws: I will follow those laws over there. I will not follow that law over there.
Sanctuary policy is wrong for that reason alone. It undermines confidence and belief in our laws and makes a mockery of them. That effect is deleterious, to say the least.

I'm afraid it does mean that sanctuary states like California, Oregon or Washington are providing special services to assist the people that migrate to sanctuary destinations. I already mentioned the cost of teaching non English speaking children an entirely different and special curriculum and the teachers and books, etc. needed to do so.

California, for example, has a tax payer funded auto insurance program so illegals, who get driver's licenses despite being in the country illegally (another special service provided), can get low cost auto insurance (subsidized by taxpaying citizens, as already mentioned).

Seattle is indeed offering a hiding place for criminals and that's just what sanctuary is. In the county where I used to live I saw the dual system of law enforcement as zoning laws were enforced one way for illegals and another way for everyone else. Multiple families were crammed into single family homes and businesses such as auto repair providers were operated in front yards and streets turning neighborhoods into auto wrecking and repair shops.
Environmental laws were absolutely ignored and discarded oil would pool in gutters and flown down drains straight down to the river that flowed eventually into the San Francisco bay and the ocean itself.

Sorry I don't see it your way at all.

When the city police maintain data on citizenship of arrests, inquire into citizenship, verify immigration documents, make arrests, hold people for ICE pickup it takes hours away from other more important work that police are actually required to do. Furthermore the police can not hold a person without a warrant or suspicion of a crime and suspicion of being illegally in the country won't do it.

Furthermore, once police start doing this, cooperation from informants in which are often people with questionable immigration status ceases.

This does not mean that police in Washington ignore immigration status of convicted felons as well as a number of misdemeanor convictions. ICE is notified of their conviction, sentence, release date and immigration status.

Illegally entering the country is a federal misdemeanor and being undocumented in the country maybe a civil misdemeanor depending how long a person's visa has been expired and whether there has been any immigration court action. For a local police department that's dealing with murders, rapes, armed robbery to spend their time on federal immigration is not a good use of their time. There is no legal requirement that local police enforce immigration law and IMHO, they have a lot more important things to do.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

When the city police maintain data on citizenship of arrests, inquire into citizenship, verify immigration documents, make arrests, hold people for ICE pickup it takes hours away from other more important work that police are required to do.

Furthermore, once police start doing this, cooperation from informants in the Hispanic community which are often people with questionable immigration status ceases.

This does not mean that police in Washington ignore immigration status of convicted felons as well as a number misdemeanor convictions. ICE is notified of their conviction, sentence, release date and immigration status as given to arresting officer.

Illegally entering the country is a federal misdemeanor and being undocumented in the country maybe a civil misdemeanor depending how long a person's visa has been expired and whether there has been any immigration court action. For local a police department that's dealing with murders, rapes, armed robbery to spend their time on federal immigration is not a good use of their time. There is no legal requirement that local police enforce immigration law and IMHO, they have a lot important things to do.

This is all a red herring and a distraction because I'm not arguing that sanctuary cities should do the work of ICE agents and I've already made that very clear.

In San Francisco and Portland, at least, and I suspect in Seattle as well, city, county and state employees aren't just not assisting federal immigration officers.
They are ordered not to communicate or cooperate with the feds in any way at all! And this means for instance someone from ICE calling the SF Sheriff's office to see when a certain prisoner is being released from custody will receive no reply at all at best, or be cursed out and have the phone slammed down on him more likely.
You give the opposite impression. I doubt that's true.

Oakand mayor Libby Schaff is actively warning all illegals of intended ICE sweeps or her city. She has assumed the roll of a look out for a gang of robbers.
Oakland Mayor Says She’ll Go To Jail To Protect Sanctuary City Policy
That's proactively acting to thwart federal law. That;s willfully and deliberately acting to assist others to break the law and that's what sanctuary policy does on a daily basis. If Trump had any balls he would take the matter to court.

It's another red herring to claim police cannot work with illegals if they don't have sanctuary policy behind them. It's self serving b.s. with out any backing to it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

KOMO News Special: Seattle is Dying


Unrestricted migration lousy leadership
Everything libs touch

That is not what it's about. As it says in the article and in the TV programs, why aren't we doing more to prevent crime, solve the homeless problem, and deal with drug abuse. These are major issues with liberals. These are homegrown problems and are not the result of migration.

I've lived in Seattle for years and what I have seen is a gross misallocation of resources, 3.3 billion dollars for a tunnel in the downtown section and one sports stadium after another and years of procrastination on the decision to expand light rail which will cost the city hundreds millions of dollars. There is nothing wrong with these projects but the city needs to make crime, drugs, and homelessness a priority.

And the LEFT has run Seattle for YEARS so guess who fucked up?

 

[Flopper]

When the city police maintain data on citizenship of arrests, inquire into citizenship, verify immigration documents, make arrests, hold people for ICE pickup it takes hours away from other more important work that police are required to do.

Furthermore, once police start doing this, cooperation from informants in the Hispanic community which are often people with questionable immigration status ceases.

This does not mean that police in Washington ignore immigration status of convicted felons as well as a number misdemeanor convictions. ICE is notified of their conviction, sentence, release date and immigration status as given to arresting officer.

Illegally entering the country is a federal misdemeanor and being undocumented in the country maybe a civil misdemeanor depending how long a person's visa has been expired and whether there has been any immigration court action. For local a police department that's dealing with murders, rapes, armed robbery to spend their time on federal immigration is not a good use of their time. There is no legal requirement that local police enforce immigration law and IMHO, they have a lot important things to do.

This is all a red herring and a distraction because I'm not arguing that sanctuary cities should do the work of ICE agents and I've already made that very clear.

In San Francisco and Portland, at least, and I suspect in Seattle as well, city, county and state employees aren't just not assisting federal immigration officers.
They are ordered not to communicate or cooperate with the feds in any way at all! And this means for instance someone from ICE calling the SF Sheriff's office to see when a certain prisoner is being released from custody will receive no reply at all at best, or be cursed out and have the phone slammed down on him more likely.
You give the opposite impression. I doubt that's true.

Oakand mayor Libby Schaff is actively warning all illegals of intended ICE sweeps or her city. She has assumed the roll of a look out for a gang of robbers.
Oakland Mayor Says She’ll Go To Jail To Protect Sanctuary City Policy
That's proactively acting to thwart federal law. That;s willfully and deliberately acting to assist others to break the law and that's what sanctuary policy does on a daily basis. If Trump had any balls he would take the matter to court.

It's another red herring to claim police cannot work with illegals if they don't have sanctuary policy behind them. It's self serving b.s. with out any backing to it.

When a police officer in Seattle asked for immigration documents and detains a person he most certainly is doing the work ICE which is not his job. The only sanctuary policy that comes from the city council is you don't arrest people for immigration violations.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

When a police officer in Seattle asked for immigration documents and detains a person he most certainly is doing the work ICE which is not his job. The only sanctuary policy that comes from the city council is you don't arrest people for immigration violations.

In what other case can a city actually assist someone in the commission of a crime?

 

[Flopper]

When a police officer in Seattle asked for immigration documents and detains a person he most certainly is doing the work ICE which is not his job. The only sanctuary policy that comes from the city council is you don't arrest people for immigration violations.

In what other case can a city actually assist someone in the commission of a crime?

Seattle city goverment is operating within both state and federal law in regard to immigration. Federal law does not mandate local law enforcement arrest, hold, or investigate people suspected of immigration violations. It just says simply that you cannot prevent the sharing of information. State and local police generally cannot arrest people solely for being in this country illegally. In all states except Arizona and Georgia, local and state police lack the authority to hold people without warrant or suspected violation of a state statue. If the federal government seeks to involve state and local law enforcement in immigration enforcement, they have change federal law.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Seattle city goverment is operating within both state and federal law in regard to immigration. Federal law does not mandate local law enforcement arrest, hold, or investigate people suspected of immigration violations. It just says simply that you cannot prevent the sharing of information. State and local police generally cannot arrest people solely for being in this country illegally. In all states except Arizona and Georgia, local and state police lack the authority to hold people without warrant or suspected violation of a state statue. If the federal government seeks to involve state and local law enforcement in immigration enforcement, they have change federal law.

I strongly disagree and a very good case can be made that by shielding law breakers from the law (which is what sanctuary literally does) they are tacitly aiding in the commission of crimes, albeit federal crimes.

In any event the cost to every tax paying citizen of helping Washington shield law breakers is a burden that is unconscionable and it also makes citizens unwilling and unwitting accomplices to crime.

There is no way around that at all.