Prop 1 - Yea or Nay? (Los Angeles, San Francisco: subsidized, living, move to)

[mattja]

Prop 1 passed statewide by 0.6%. That means half of those voters voted NO. That's a good sign.

The people in my own county, Contra Costa, have never met a bond issue they didn't support. They don't seem to care about burdening their children with billions of dollars of debt. The people here are nuts.

BUT... Almost 44% voted NO on Prop 1, so we are making progress.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by mattja

They don't seem to care about burdening their children with billions of dollars of debt. The people here are nuts.

As opposed to burdening their children with the ever increasing problems of homelessness.

[mattja]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

As opposed to burdening their children with the ever increasing problems of homelessness.

Throwing even more billions at a problem the previous billions had no effect on other than to enrich the homeless industry and non-profits who have a vested interest is not finding a solution, is not a solution.

[Trekker99]

Originally Posted by mattja

Throwing even more billions at a problem the previous billions had no effect on other than to enrich the homeless industry and non-profits who have a vested interest is not finding a solution, is not a solution.

But the impending/inevitable failure of Prop 1 will be framed as a need for even more money. Just like public schools, high speed rail, housing, etc.

The inescapable trap CA is in is ever more taxes are needed to 'solve' the problems - yet the tax base is spiraling down thanks to burdensome legislation.

Grease your backside for the slide down - folks should heed what Margaret Thatcher said.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by mattja

Throwing even more billions at a problem the previous billions had no effect on other than to enrich the homeless industry and non-profits who have a vested interest is not finding a solution, is not a solution.

How do you know the billions spent had no helpful effect?

What is: *The Homeless Industry*? What could this *industry* and various non-profits do, that they don’t, to “find the solution”?

Approximately 75% of all homeless at any given time find their way out of homelessness in 12 months or less. Roughly 25% remain chronically homeless. Virtually ALL homeless benefit at some point by various services and support funded by those “billions [of dollars]” you say have had no effect … when reality is, 75% get back in housing, and sustain their life along the way.

If those “billions” weren’t there, ….

The problem un-analyzed by people such as yourself who fire off uninformed comments such as you have, that there is some kind of “industry” perpetuating homelessness, and money spent is just wasted, is that more *new* homeless are created faster than today’s 75% move on out of crisis.

If those “billions weren’t there, the problem would be exponential to what it is.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Well, really, for thousands of years all around the world … but hey, just say “No” and it’ll stop, eh?

That seems to be a popular belief here, doesn't it?

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by stablegenius

Spoiler alert, it won't. Their plans never do. But for some reason people keep say yes to this crap.

We don't know that for sure. I still don't believe taking control of the problem out of the counties hands and putting the state in charge is a good thing, though. But here's a commentary published in Cal Matters, from last July. It may be the very reason Prop 1 ended up on the ballot. Take it to the voters instead of letting the so-called eggheads in Sacramento come up with a solution.

In summary

California has spent billions of dollars in recent years to reduce homelessness, but the problem is only getting worse. Lawmakers should rethink their approach and consider solutions that involve the private sector and repeal laws that make it too expensive to build housing.

https://calmatters.org/commentary/20...ness-spending/

[Ceece]

I voted no, as I do on most bond measures. To those who voted yes you're kids (or grandkids) will probably see similar bills when they are voting age. In other words, don't hold your breath for this to actually happen the way you think it will.

[mattja]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

How do you know the billions spent had no helpful effect?

California has spent billions to fight homelessness. The problem has gotten worse

Los Angeles
CNN
—
California has spent a stunning $17.5 billion trying to combat homelessness over just four years. But, in the same time frame, from 2018 to 2022, the state’s homeless population actually grew. Half of all Americans living outside on the streets, federal data shows, live in California.

Across the country, homelessness is on the rise. But California is adding more homeless people every year than any other state. More than 170,000 unhoused people now live here.

“The problem would be so much worse, absent these interventions,” Jason Elliott, senior adviser on homelessness to Gov. Gavin Newsom, told CNN. “And that’s not what people want to hear. I get it, we get it.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/us/ca...ing/index.html

This is one of many articles.

What is: *The Homeless Industry*? What could this *industry* and various non-profits do, that they don’t, to “find the solution”?

The homeless industry are the numerous non-profits and NGOs that profit from the billions of dollars spent to fight homelessness, but up to this time have been ineffective in doing so.

Approximately 75% of all homeless at any given time find their way out of homelessness in 12 months or less. Roughly 25% remain chronically homeless.

First, one has to define "homeless." The narrative that the homeless are mostly hardworking people down on their luck has been a lie since day one. That narrative is used to invoke sympathy and financial donations. The fact of the matter is the majority of homeless are mentally ill, drug addicts, or mentally ill drug addicts, and don't want housing due to the anti-drug restrictions that come with it, or are mentally ill, and incapable of making cognizant decisions.

Which type of "homeless" are you referring to?

Virtually ALL homeless benefit at some point by various services and support funded by those “billions [of dollars]” you say have had no effect … when reality is, 75% get back in housing, and sustain their life along the way.

Again, which type of "homeless" are you referring to. Provide a link to back up those figures, please.

If those “billions” weren’t there, ….

It would have the same effect having those billions there have had. Nil.

The problem un-analyzed by people such as yourself who fire off uninformed comments such as you have, that there is some kind of “industry” perpetuating homelessness, and money spent is just wasted, is that more *new* homeless are created faster than today’s 75% move on out of crisis.

If those “billions weren’t there, the problem would be exponential to what it is.

The fact of the matter is the data is not on your side. But I think you know that and are simply married to your political dogma.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by mattja

The fact of the matter is the majority of homeless are mentally ill, drug addicts, or mentally ill drug addicts, and don't want housing due to the anti-drug restrictions that come with it, or are mentally ill, and incapable of making cognizant decisions.

Actually, the "majority" of homeless are not, and that myth has been debunked repeatedly on the homeless threads on this forum. So we won't go into it AGAIN on this thread. (See: https://www.city-data.com/forum/los-...nt-thread.html)

Originally Posted by mattja

First, one has to define "homeless."

There is no one definition of "homeless." According to the report (linked below in Calmatters article), 1 in 5 people who enrolled in state-funded homelessness programs were considered “chronically homeless” — unsheltered for at least a year while living with a complicating health issue.

But more than three times as many – two-thirds of all who sought state-funded services for homelessness — were people who hadn’t popped up in the system for at least two years, if ever.

"Nearly a third of the country’s homeless population reside in the Golden State — and seniors make up the fastest-growing demographic, according to a 2023 study from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)."

https://moneywise.com/real-estate/se...home-heres-why

Originally Posted by mattja

It would have the same effect having those billions there have had. Nil.

Read the information on where the $ spent to combat homelessness in California has gone.

California homelessness: Where are the state’s billions going?
https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/...ending-report/

Originally Posted by mattja

The fact of the matter is the data is not on your side. But I think you know that and are simply married to your political dogma.

A lof of people can't seem to have a discussion about an issue in California without throwing labels at people or telling them that they're so inflexible that they can't see any other viewpoint.