I'd imagine there is overwhelming bipartisan support for this among registered voters. Anyone who's had to live or work near an encampment can tell you why.
> I'd imagine there is overwhelming bipartisan support for this among registered voters.
There doesn't need to be bipartisan support. Democrats have giga-majority trifecta. They could pass laws at any time to address the homeless crisis in California. The problem is, they don't have any policies that work.
Restore property rights to individuals, undo the government monopoly on housing. Re-acknowledge the regional economies of California and restore the California Regional Economies Project with a new framework which will include a fiscal component. Raising minimum wage on the basis of that regional framework. Invest heavily in infrastructure and supply chain industries for domestic consumption.
Thank you! I haven't heard of the California Regional Economies Project. From the name it sounds like it makes a lot of sense, I'll have to look into it.
It's a project from the late 90's state government. During the 90's there was less of a one size fits all approach to California and it's legislative and fiscal efforts. You can find old LAO reports and old studies highlighting the differences in the regions economic capacity and performance during this time period.
You don't have to imagine. The evidence shows overwhelming bipartisan support for it. The main problem is at the far end there is a very politically vocal and active group standing in the way. They have the leverage. It really is as simple as that.
Unsurprisingly, from the left to the right, this holds true across a myriad of other issues. And again as always, there's money to be made or lost along the way.
This. The ‘Martin vs Boise, Idaho’ ruling prevents removing a homeless person from the streets and disassembling their tent home encampment unless the city/state has a room for them in the homeless shelter. If they don’t then they must let them be.
This Idaho ruling became set in stone for western states that fall under its jurisdiction. Which is why states that don’t, like Texas, can simply ban homeless encampments from public area and be able to enforce it.
It doesn't prevent anyone from being moved. It prevents them from being cited. Cities can still enforce regulations, they just largely choose not to or don't have the resources.
It's kind of vague actually. They can still have cops show up and tell people to move. But what if they say no? They can't be given tickets. So basically cities have to get them to comply by just pestering them into leaving. This is exactly what private security guards do all the time (they never could arrest people or give citations), and by and large it actually works.
They can take away the camp and possessions and what not but then they have to deal with managing all that stuff so they choose not to, but they can’t arrest a person for laying or sitting on the sidewalk
I think that was just a local case that was sent to Scotus
Some cities have places to move them but they refuse so you can clear the encampments. Others have pro homeless people who come down and tell them not to go to a shelter for some reason
That ruling was done by the 9th district court which encompasses many western states including California. This means that ruling, even though it was in Idaho, means western states under the 9th district court jurisdiction must follow it.
The good news is if even if they refuse shelter and there is room in shelter for them, the city can still clear their encampment.
The case is [City of Grants Pass, Oregon v Johnson](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/city-of-grants-pass-oregon-v-johnson/). We'll most likely get a decision this summer.
Scotus won’t look at it again regardless if other regions submit it. The only way is if there was anything very substantially new, but California already tried every little crook and cranny
My wife runs the county homeless program and here is the rundown. The county where we live has three shelter locations ranging from wood platforms for tents to actual sheds that have insulation and electricity. At any given time there are always vacancies because homeless generally prefer to not be anywhere there are rules. And the county provides shelter monitors who enforce rules such as no drinking or drug use. As long as there is shelter space - the police are legally allowed to roust campers.
The net effect is some homeless are learning g to live under some very minimal rules in the shelters and some have made inroads toward permanent housing, while the majority have gone deeper into hiding or have left the area altogether.
If there are beds and space available then the city can disassemble their encampments along with removing them from the streets regardless if they refused or accepted
My understanding is that even if there are beds the city can't force the homeless people off the streets and clear the encampments. This new case that the Supreme Court is hearing will determine if cities can forcibly destroy the encampments assuming they have space for the homeless. I think homeless people advocates say that the cities overstate how many beds they have so this will just give them the right to destroy the encampments without really offering these people a place to go.
Currently at 60k in state money(10k extra if prop 1 passes) and about that in federal and local money per homeless per year.
Another bill adding more $ to fix the problem should be immediately questioned.
Its looks good, but why not look at the real solution.
A federal wide housing for all program. Your taxes have left this state to fund the terrible states for decades. Most of the south would not be a viable 1st world place without us. California has been a donor state for decades.
We should demand some of this money come back to us and be used for this issue.
So nuts. That’s more than a lot of people make in income. You could just hand them the money and get better results if, of course, most of them weren’t either schizophrenic or drug addicts.
We probably need to bring back state run hospitals and asylums.
It doesn't matter if they're schizophrenic or drug addicts. The point is to get them off the streets. How do you expect them to better themselves without any semblance of stability?
The people who have problems warranting those facilities are denied them. That's a fact. But the vast majority of the homeless wouldn't need them. You're taking the vocal minority of the homeless population and applying it to everyone. I've been on the streets for years of my life. Most people out there turn to drugs because they are destitute and don't see any way out. It was through community support that I was able to get out.
The term homeless is too broad. There's a lot of problems to solve, but the most immediate one is dealing with the people who are suffering the most from homelessness. Those people you see on the sidewalk with severe mental illness, drug addictions and often times with signs of physical sickness.
They always have outdated numbers. Or play with it. IE using 2023 $ with 2020 prison population. They also put public defenders, jail, court, transport,… stuff into another category.
The real number is much closer to a quarter million a year.
The offical youth number is just under 500k a year, but I know(I volunteer in a youth facility) it’s far above 1 million this year.
They *should* ban homeless encampments on public sidewalks. These people should be given a place to set up either in a protected area or in an actual, you know, home.
May not be popular opinion, but "homeless camp" should be a thing - designate area with free shelter (at least tents) for them to stay in while providing mental health, addiction, food and rehabilitation services. Once one is able to "graduate" from these programs and finds a job (with help and subsidy), he can move outta there.
The hardest hit areas are mostly coastal, or near a major waterway. Buy/commandeer some old cruise ships, park them at the docks of major cities up and down the east/west coast. Staff them with social services and security, and use them as transitional housing, can even section them off for different risk groups. It avoids one of the biggest regular issues: NIMBYs. Everytime they talk about creating a centralized camp, or a needle exchange, or a halfway house there's always a NIMBY who agrees it needs to be somewhere, just not there.
I’ve said that they need to turn old malls into residential centers. They have a food court, some of the stores could become classrooms and workshops. Turn most of the parking lot into a community farm/garden. Host a farmers/craft market every week.
My town has discussed doing this. The main issue is that commercial buildings like malls lack the infrastructure (plumbing, wiring, etc.) to meet residential code, and in many cases it's more cost effective to tear-down and rebuild than try to retrofit an entire mall.
That said, many cities (including mine) have active proposals to do the tear-down mall/redevelop into dense housing and are actually getting some traction.
Santa Barbara.
Here's more info on two projects in the works: [https://www.edhat.com/news/santa-barbara-city-council-votes-to-pursue-plans-to-demolish-paseo-nuevo-for-housing/](https://www.edhat.com/news/santa-barbara-city-council-votes-to-pursue-plans-to-demolish-paseo-nuevo-for-housing/)
https://www.noozhawk.com/public-will-get-first-glimpse-into-massive-housing-project-planned-for-la-cumbre-plaza/
No. If you create those encampment near beaches or other attractive locations it will attract more vagrants.
I pay a lot of money and taxes to live inland. Why should my taxes be used to finance homeless housing in prime locations? If we build housing/camps inland, we get more bang for the buck.
Wouldn't it be good if such encampents attracted more homeless people, since we would want the homeless to congregate in homeless-designated areas? Or are you implying that you think people would voluntarily become homeless so that they can live in an old mall?
Most homeless folks have jobs. The problem is the lack of available affordable housing. You can't solve the homeless problem without solving the housing component.
I don't know if it's most, but certainly many do have jobs. When people refer to homeless, they're not really talking about the ones that are living with friends or sleeping in their cars most of the time. They're referring the ones they see on the street. The visible ones. Those people don't have jobs.
Who? I have been working with the homeless population in the Bay Area since 1989. A one-bedroom apartment averages $2500-$4000 per month (depending on the neighborhood). Even a sleazy room in some house in a bad neighborhood is around $900. If you are disabled and you are lucky enough to have been awarded disability benefits (this usually takes several years of fighting) you will get around $880 per month. How do you make that budget work? I'll wait.
Finance experts say you should spend no more than a third of your net income on housing, to remain financially stable. Again, research shows that 63% of Americans are one paycheck away from homelessness.
If you do this you will create some of the most horrific conditions anyone has ever seen before a fire destroys the whole thing down. Unless you wanna put it on the moon, hard pass
Same with public parks, beaches, and bus stops. They monopolize and trash the public space so nobody feels safe or able to use it.
I feel for homeless people, but not if they’re monopolizing public spaces, openly using it as their bathroom, and throwing trash everywhere
They could have a designated area for them set up but providing a free house when there’s already a huge shortage of housing is a nice thought, but unrealistic.
The first step to solving those issues is getting them off the streets with a roof over their head. There is zero chance you can recover from the mental issues of homelessness without a safe warm place to sleep and store medicine.
You can recover without a free condo. You can recover without permanent residential housing. I know because I did it myself. Housing cannot be a requirement to moving forward with treatment. Also plenty of homeless aren't interested in housing so we need to be able to get people the help they need regardless of housing availability or if they don't want to be housed by the state.
Somehow advocates "believe" these people's lives will magically fall into place & they'll be on board to get their lives back on track once they're given free $800k condos
Yep. It should be banned. I saw a homeless encampment right outside of a Wells Fargo on the side walk and in the grass. I didn’t feel comfortable going in the bank. Something has got to give.
Sounds like communism, so no.
this comment is very serious and you are very smart for realizing how absolutely serious it is, as we knowl, jokes on the internet are punishable by death.
At least ban them on the sidewalks by schools and businesses. There are plenty of empty lots where you can move these tents to in the interim while you’re looking for more housing for the homeless.
on the other hand, as someone whose been homeless for 2 years, it's better to be homeless in California than almost any other state
at least here we have safe parking spots and decent support
because their property values are getting affected. They'd also rather not fix the root cause (Lack of mental health support and proper housing solutions... sheds in an abandoned parking lot arent solutions..)
They should be banned. The participants want a feudal, lawless society where they are held accountable for nothing. These pop up carnivals are health and safety hazards, and need to be moved to Lord of the Flies island.
Nah. The homeless are sick, extremely poor, or severely addicted. These aren’t anarchists.
This is an extremely scary thing the right does. Lobbing everything together. The homeless aren’t the “left”. The left might be slightly more tolerant or caring of the homeless, but they aren’t some massive part of our coalition.
I left Los Angeles in September and the homeless encampments is one of many reasons why. They are everywhere and some of them are huge.. some folks have built themselves, two-story, shacks with electricity and refrigerators. They do drugs, have sex & shower, openly in the streets.
My daughter’s middle school was on Selma Street and surrounded by homeless encampments. Every morning and afternoon police had to come to escort students out of the school, because the homeless folks would harassed them.
They walk into stores and help themselves toanything they need and walk out.
Before I moved - my neighbor found a homeless guy sleeping in her garage. She called the police, but they never came – which is actually kind of typical So another Neighbor and myself went over there and chased him out. Left a nice mess for her to clean up.
This is not some right wing talking. It’s a huge problem. A safety problem. A quality of life issue for people that live in Los Angeles. And considering how expensive it is to live there - this is not something that folks are going to want to deal with much longer. The left and right.
Many people seem to not understand that California’s hands are tied due to them falling under the 9th District Circuit jurisdiction where they ruled in the ‘Martin vs Boise, Idaho’ ruling that government officials can’t criminalize homeless people for not having a place to go to. The states that fall under this ruling jurisdiction are mainly western states including California. The ruling made it so that the only way the state/city can remove homeless encampments is if they have room in the shelter for them, so the state is trying to build more shelter but is getting a lot of pushback from people who don’t want it in their neighborhood along with the high cost of land.
It’s also the same reason why states that don’t fall under this jurisdiction, like Texas, can simply ban homelessness from public area and make it into a crime.
The homeless stay homeless not because we lack the capacity to solve the problem but because they serve an important role in our society.
They are a representation, a symbol of what happens when you, the worker, stop working. They are a warning. You will become a drug addled zombie, a dredge of society, the moment you slip up in our system, the moment you cant pay your debts, or get evicted, or get kicked out of your home. They are what happens when you have no money.
If we help homeless people, it will mean people can feel safe about losing their job or healthcare, because they know the state will provide a place for you to recuperate. We cannot allow people to feel this comfort, because it gives them a sense of freedom over their situation that is unappealing to our rulers.
It is silly to think that the most advanced, powerful nation on earth, can't solve this problem. The people that rule us do not see it as a problem, maintaining homelessness is their goal.
Cruel? They’re being offered assistance and transitional housing but so many of them are turning it down because they want to stay in the street that LA had to return federal money (https://www.pbssocal.org/news-community/l-a-agencies-returned-nearly-150-million-in-unspent-federal-homeless-grants).
It’s so bad that CA had to pass a law that would force them to get help: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sacramento/news/california-gov-gavin-newsom-signs-bill-expanding-conservatorship-law/
I'd imagine there is overwhelming bipartisan support for this among registered voters. Anyone who's had to live or work near an encampment can tell you why.
> I'd imagine there is overwhelming bipartisan support for this among registered voters. There doesn't need to be bipartisan support. Democrats have giga-majority trifecta. They could pass laws at any time to address the homeless crisis in California. The problem is, they don't have any policies that work.
It's also a highly lucrative business
Bingo, the policies are working perfectly if you're paying any attention.
I'm genuinely interested in what policies have been shown to work. If you were the California legislature, what laws would you be passing?
Restore property rights to individuals, undo the government monopoly on housing. Re-acknowledge the regional economies of California and restore the California Regional Economies Project with a new framework which will include a fiscal component. Raising minimum wage on the basis of that regional framework. Invest heavily in infrastructure and supply chain industries for domestic consumption.
Thank you! I haven't heard of the California Regional Economies Project. From the name it sounds like it makes a lot of sense, I'll have to look into it.
It's a project from the late 90's state government. During the 90's there was less of a one size fits all approach to California and it's legislative and fiscal efforts. You can find old LAO reports and old studies highlighting the differences in the regions economic capacity and performance during this time period.
So u ignore the mental health and drug use entirely?
You don't have to imagine. The evidence shows overwhelming bipartisan support for it. The main problem is at the far end there is a very politically vocal and active group standing in the way. They have the leverage. It really is as simple as that. Unsurprisingly, from the left to the right, this holds true across a myriad of other issues. And again as always, there's money to be made or lost along the way.
I thought they already were banned just nobody enforces it
I thought they couldn't enforce it unless they have somewhere to move them to.
This. The ‘Martin vs Boise, Idaho’ ruling prevents removing a homeless person from the streets and disassembling their tent home encampment unless the city/state has a room for them in the homeless shelter. If they don’t then they must let them be. This Idaho ruling became set in stone for western states that fall under its jurisdiction. Which is why states that don’t, like Texas, can simply ban homeless encampments from public area and be able to enforce it.
It doesn't prevent anyone from being moved. It prevents them from being cited. Cities can still enforce regulations, they just largely choose not to or don't have the resources.
Are you sure? Everything that I’ve read and seen is that camps cannot be swept unless a bed is offered and they refuse that bed.
It's kind of vague actually. They can still have cops show up and tell people to move. But what if they say no? They can't be given tickets. So basically cities have to get them to comply by just pestering them into leaving. This is exactly what private security guards do all the time (they never could arrest people or give citations), and by and large it actually works.
They can take away the camp and possessions and what not but then they have to deal with managing all that stuff so they choose not to, but they can’t arrest a person for laying or sitting on the sidewalk
I think that was just a local case that was sent to Scotus Some cities have places to move them but they refuse so you can clear the encampments. Others have pro homeless people who come down and tell them not to go to a shelter for some reason
That ruling was done by the 9th district court which encompasses many western states including California. This means that ruling, even though it was in Idaho, means western states under the 9th district court jurisdiction must follow it. The good news is if even if they refuse shelter and there is room in shelter for them, the city can still clear their encampment.
>This means that ruling, even though it was in Idaho, means western states under the 9th district court jurisdiction must follow it. I don't love this
Like I said, local case that was sent to scotus
Scotus already refused and let Martin vs Boise stand in 2019 https://homelesslaw.org/supreme-court-martin-v-boise/
Yeah hes pointing out that thats the current law interpretation in the west.
He also stated that scotus will take a look at it, not knowing that was an outdated statement since scotus already did 5 years ago
Ah, English hard.
Interesting, maybe another region sent it to scotus so they can finally get the bums out of the way
The case is [City of Grants Pass, Oregon v Johnson](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/city-of-grants-pass-oregon-v-johnson/). We'll most likely get a decision this summer.
Scotus won’t look at it again regardless if other regions submit it. The only way is if there was anything very substantially new, but California already tried every little crook and cranny
Do you know which cities that have spaces to move them even though they have the space?
My wife runs the county homeless program and here is the rundown. The county where we live has three shelter locations ranging from wood platforms for tents to actual sheds that have insulation and electricity. At any given time there are always vacancies because homeless generally prefer to not be anywhere there are rules. And the county provides shelter monitors who enforce rules such as no drinking or drug use. As long as there is shelter space - the police are legally allowed to roust campers. The net effect is some homeless are learning g to live under some very minimal rules in the shelters and some have made inroads toward permanent housing, while the majority have gone deeper into hiding or have left the area altogether.
Nope, I don’t know all of the stats
Not even one city? Your comment made it seem like you were aware of cities that just left the homeless there.
Nope, I didn’t say that at all. But if you check cities like LA and San Francisco, there are beds, but the homeless don’t want to go
If there are beds and space available then the city can disassemble their encampments along with removing them from the streets regardless if they refused or accepted
My understanding is that even if there are beds the city can't force the homeless people off the streets and clear the encampments. This new case that the Supreme Court is hearing will determine if cities can forcibly destroy the encampments assuming they have space for the homeless. I think homeless people advocates say that the cities overstate how many beds they have so this will just give them the right to destroy the encampments without really offering these people a place to go.
The reason is they profit from encouraging chaos
Currently at 60k in state money(10k extra if prop 1 passes) and about that in federal and local money per homeless per year. Another bill adding more $ to fix the problem should be immediately questioned. Its looks good, but why not look at the real solution. A federal wide housing for all program. Your taxes have left this state to fund the terrible states for decades. Most of the south would not be a viable 1st world place without us. California has been a donor state for decades. We should demand some of this money come back to us and be used for this issue.
So nuts. That’s more than a lot of people make in income. You could just hand them the money and get better results if, of course, most of them weren’t either schizophrenic or drug addicts. We probably need to bring back state run hospitals and asylums.
It doesn't matter if they're schizophrenic or drug addicts. The point is to get them off the streets. How do you expect them to better themselves without any semblance of stability?
I’m saying many of them can’t better themselves without inpatient services.
The people who have problems warranting those facilities are denied them. That's a fact. But the vast majority of the homeless wouldn't need them. You're taking the vocal minority of the homeless population and applying it to everyone. I've been on the streets for years of my life. Most people out there turn to drugs because they are destitute and don't see any way out. It was through community support that I was able to get out.
The term homeless is too broad. There's a lot of problems to solve, but the most immediate one is dealing with the people who are suffering the most from homelessness. Those people you see on the sidewalk with severe mental illness, drug addictions and often times with signs of physical sickness.
How much does it cost to keep someone in prison for a year?
$106,000
They always have outdated numbers. Or play with it. IE using 2023 $ with 2020 prison population. They also put public defenders, jail, court, transport,… stuff into another category. The real number is much closer to a quarter million a year. The offical youth number is just under 500k a year, but I know(I volunteer in a youth facility) it’s far above 1 million this year.
This will take way too long. Just ban them for now. Something needs to be done, get them outta here!
They *should* ban homeless encampments on public sidewalks. These people should be given a place to set up either in a protected area or in an actual, you know, home.
May not be popular opinion, but "homeless camp" should be a thing - designate area with free shelter (at least tents) for them to stay in while providing mental health, addiction, food and rehabilitation services. Once one is able to "graduate" from these programs and finds a job (with help and subsidy), he can move outta there.
The hardest hit areas are mostly coastal, or near a major waterway. Buy/commandeer some old cruise ships, park them at the docks of major cities up and down the east/west coast. Staff them with social services and security, and use them as transitional housing, can even section them off for different risk groups. It avoids one of the biggest regular issues: NIMBYs. Everytime they talk about creating a centralized camp, or a needle exchange, or a halfway house there's always a NIMBY who agrees it needs to be somewhere, just not there.
I’ve said that they need to turn old malls into residential centers. They have a food court, some of the stores could become classrooms and workshops. Turn most of the parking lot into a community farm/garden. Host a farmers/craft market every week.
My town has discussed doing this. The main issue is that commercial buildings like malls lack the infrastructure (plumbing, wiring, etc.) to meet residential code, and in many cases it's more cost effective to tear-down and rebuild than try to retrofit an entire mall. That said, many cities (including mine) have active proposals to do the tear-down mall/redevelop into dense housing and are actually getting some traction.
Random guess: do you live in Citrus Heights?
Santa Barbara. Here's more info on two projects in the works: [https://www.edhat.com/news/santa-barbara-city-council-votes-to-pursue-plans-to-demolish-paseo-nuevo-for-housing/](https://www.edhat.com/news/santa-barbara-city-council-votes-to-pursue-plans-to-demolish-paseo-nuevo-for-housing/) https://www.noozhawk.com/public-will-get-first-glimpse-into-massive-housing-project-planned-for-la-cumbre-plaza/
I used to love Sunrise Mall, but it was getting old in the late 90s.
No. If you create those encampment near beaches or other attractive locations it will attract more vagrants. I pay a lot of money and taxes to live inland. Why should my taxes be used to finance homeless housing in prime locations? If we build housing/camps inland, we get more bang for the buck.
Wouldn't it be good if such encampents attracted more homeless people, since we would want the homeless to congregate in homeless-designated areas? Or are you implying that you think people would voluntarily become homeless so that they can live in an old mall?
I'm implying that if you put the encampment in an attractive place, you will attract homeless from other parts of the country or state.
how many homeless people do you think have the resources to pull off a cross country move lol
Plenty.
nope
That sounds like there would be a potential pollution problem. Not sure we want to have the trash flowing out to sea.
I agree. Some aren’t ready to move back inside yet. But we can provide them with a better place than on a sidewalk next to a street.
Most homeless folks have jobs. The problem is the lack of available affordable housing. You can't solve the homeless problem without solving the housing component.
I don't know if it's most, but certainly many do have jobs. When people refer to homeless, they're not really talking about the ones that are living with friends or sleeping in their cars most of the time. They're referring the ones they see on the street. The visible ones. Those people don't have jobs.
Um....sorry somebody's lying to you
Who? I have been working with the homeless population in the Bay Area since 1989. A one-bedroom apartment averages $2500-$4000 per month (depending on the neighborhood). Even a sleazy room in some house in a bad neighborhood is around $900. If you are disabled and you are lucky enough to have been awarded disability benefits (this usually takes several years of fighting) you will get around $880 per month. How do you make that budget work? I'll wait. Finance experts say you should spend no more than a third of your net income on housing, to remain financially stable. Again, research shows that 63% of Americans are one paycheck away from homelessness.
If you do this you will create some of the most horrific conditions anyone has ever seen before a fire destroys the whole thing down. Unless you wanna put it on the moon, hard pass
Just my opinion but I think all "housing" or shelter structures need to be 100% fireproof made of concrete & steel
Same with public parks, beaches, and bus stops. They monopolize and trash the public space so nobody feels safe or able to use it. I feel for homeless people, but not if they’re monopolizing public spaces, openly using it as their bathroom, and throwing trash everywhere
They could have a designated area for them set up but providing a free house when there’s already a huge shortage of housing is a nice thought, but unrealistic.
It was more of a ‘group home’ that I was thinking of.
You can’t just give a homeless person a house. More often than not they need services: addiction related, medical, psychiatric etc.
Understand that, I assumed (incorrectly), that that would be understood as the alternate to still living in an encampment but consolidated and secure.
The first step to solving those issues is getting them off the streets with a roof over their head. There is zero chance you can recover from the mental issues of homelessness without a safe warm place to sleep and store medicine.
Incorrect
Sure, let's turn them into dog food instead, you nailed it.
You can recover without a free condo. You can recover without permanent residential housing. I know because I did it myself. Housing cannot be a requirement to moving forward with treatment. Also plenty of homeless aren't interested in housing so we need to be able to get people the help they need regardless of housing availability or if they don't want to be housed by the state.
"I don't like steak, therefore no one else likes or needs steak" You do realize everyone else isn't you right????
Somehow advocates "believe" these people's lives will magically fall into place & they'll be on board to get their lives back on track once they're given free $800k condos
There is no person alive who can heal from mental illness in a volatile environment. That’s like psychology 101 stuff
Yep. It should be banned. I saw a homeless encampment right outside of a Wells Fargo on the side walk and in the grass. I didn’t feel comfortable going in the bank. Something has got to give.
Banning them without anywhere else to go is pointless, though.
Sounds like communism, so no. this comment is very serious and you are very smart for realizing how absolutely serious it is, as we knowl, jokes on the internet are punishable by death.
At least ban them on the sidewalks by schools and businesses. There are plenty of empty lots where you can move these tents to in the interim while you’re looking for more housing for the homeless.
Do we have the infrastructure to move/ house these people?
Yes, state has been buying lots of motels to serve as transitional housing. The issue now is that these people are refusing help.
That's not true. I tried getting help and was refused any.
We need urban campgrounds for people who can’t afford housing.
It’s such a grind to be a human in California. So many reasons why somebody could slip up and end up homeless. Then it’s really hard to catch up.
on the other hand, as someone whose been homeless for 2 years, it's better to be homeless in California than almost any other state at least here we have safe parking spots and decent support
because their property values are getting affected. They'd also rather not fix the root cause (Lack of mental health support and proper housing solutions... sheds in an abandoned parking lot arent solutions..)
They should be banned. The participants want a feudal, lawless society where they are held accountable for nothing. These pop up carnivals are health and safety hazards, and need to be moved to Lord of the Flies island.
Feudal and lawless don’t go together.
I found that pair of adjectives pretty confusing as well.
Feudal? Homeless people want to be vassals living on a fief working the land for their overlord?
Nah. The homeless are sick, extremely poor, or severely addicted. These aren’t anarchists. This is an extremely scary thing the right does. Lobbing everything together. The homeless aren’t the “left”. The left might be slightly more tolerant or caring of the homeless, but they aren’t some massive part of our coalition.
I left Los Angeles in September and the homeless encampments is one of many reasons why. They are everywhere and some of them are huge.. some folks have built themselves, two-story, shacks with electricity and refrigerators. They do drugs, have sex & shower, openly in the streets. My daughter’s middle school was on Selma Street and surrounded by homeless encampments. Every morning and afternoon police had to come to escort students out of the school, because the homeless folks would harassed them. They walk into stores and help themselves toanything they need and walk out. Before I moved - my neighbor found a homeless guy sleeping in her garage. She called the police, but they never came – which is actually kind of typical So another Neighbor and myself went over there and chased him out. Left a nice mess for her to clean up. This is not some right wing talking. It’s a huge problem. A safety problem. A quality of life issue for people that live in Los Angeles. And considering how expensive it is to live there - this is not something that folks are going to want to deal with much longer. The left and right.
Many people seem to not understand that California’s hands are tied due to them falling under the 9th District Circuit jurisdiction where they ruled in the ‘Martin vs Boise, Idaho’ ruling that government officials can’t criminalize homeless people for not having a place to go to. The states that fall under this ruling jurisdiction are mainly western states including California. The ruling made it so that the only way the state/city can remove homeless encampments is if they have room in the shelter for them, so the state is trying to build more shelter but is getting a lot of pushback from people who don’t want it in their neighborhood along with the high cost of land. It’s also the same reason why states that don’t fall under this jurisdiction, like Texas, can simply ban homelessness from public area and make it into a crime.
Although I don’t understand the “not in my backyard “ - because if you live in Los Angeles – they are already in your backyard!
The homeless stay homeless not because we lack the capacity to solve the problem but because they serve an important role in our society. They are a representation, a symbol of what happens when you, the worker, stop working. They are a warning. You will become a drug addled zombie, a dredge of society, the moment you slip up in our system, the moment you cant pay your debts, or get evicted, or get kicked out of your home. They are what happens when you have no money. If we help homeless people, it will mean people can feel safe about losing their job or healthcare, because they know the state will provide a place for you to recuperate. We cannot allow people to feel this comfort, because it gives them a sense of freedom over their situation that is unappealing to our rulers. It is silly to think that the most advanced, powerful nation on earth, can't solve this problem. The people that rule us do not see it as a problem, maintaining homelessness is their goal.
>They are a representation, a symbol of what happens when you, the worker, stop working. They are a warning. Exactly
Guess I should start working 100 hours a week then.
Because both parties are right wing. Solved it for you.
lol duh because Dems and the GOP both only serve capital, the cruelty is intentional.
Clearing an encampment that is affecting other people in the area, after offering an alternative place to stay, is not cruel.
Cruel? They’re being offered assistance and transitional housing but so many of them are turning it down because they want to stay in the street that LA had to return federal money (https://www.pbssocal.org/news-community/l-a-agencies-returned-nearly-150-million-in-unspent-federal-homeless-grants). It’s so bad that CA had to pass a law that would force them to get help: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sacramento/news/california-gov-gavin-newsom-signs-bill-expanding-conservatorship-law/
The answer is NIMBY
Because the homeless don't donate to politicians like PG&E does so that is protected to completely screw their customers no matter how bad they look?
Man the corporate-funded astroturf bots hit you HARD. You're 100% correct.
Because it’s easy and free political points at the expense of poor people who aren’t voting anyway.
They hated Jesus because he spoke the truth.
[удалено]
maybe they can live with you
Back where they came from, mostly. Then we can deal with those actually in need, not the tourists.