zlacker

Oh there are whole neighborhoods in the Bay Area with no sidewalks.

>>inferi+(OP)
There are neighborhoods in DC and Denver with no sidewalk. In the city proper, sometimes near a transit station.

>>inferi+(OP)
Los Altos. I feel like that's more to discourage random people from loitering.

>>hot_gr+b5
I feel like loitering, like jay-walking, is a crime invented for the purpose of selling cars. There's nothing inherently wrong with just hanging out on foot in a place where people are meant to be on foot and/or hanging out.

>>diggin+J5
If you own a house in a suburb, and some random people are sitting on the sidewalk directly in front of your house instead of going to a nearby park or anything else of interest to them, you might wonder what they're up to.

>>diggin+J5
Don't worry, we Americans found out how to loiter in cars - it's called cruising and it's illegal in some cities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruising_(driving)

>>hot_gr+sa
Only because we've developed the culture that loitering is crime.

>>hot_gr+sa
Yeah, they paid all that money to not be living next to poor people. How dare they just waltz in and sit on their sidewalks?

>>xboxno+JM
Loitering in front of a house just looks suspicious, and I don't think there's any law against it. The crime is if you come back to find litter, or they've messed with your house.

>>_v7gu+FA1
Doesn't matter if they're poor. Teens who vandalize stuff are probably not poor either.

>>hot_gr+sa
That's because American suburbs are culture and commerce deserts, designed to sell cars (and to promote racism! but that's not the current topic). If you own a house in a livable neighborhood, with stores down the street, it isn't that weird for people to hang out in any particular spot. There are perfectly non-nefarious things/people they could be waiting for.

This is what I meant in the second half of my previous comment.

>>diggin+kj2
The part about stores is what I mean too. If the neighborhood were mixed-purpose, there'd be a reason to hang out on the street.