How would YOU resolve LA's homeless problem? (Arvin: employment, neighborhood)

[Gunluvver2]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

unless they volunteered to go there, your plan is unconstitutional.

Most people would volunteer to have something other than a cardboard box under a bridge don't you think?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaGal

Sadly we know the people suffering from Schizophrenia will not take their meds and I believe these folks need to be under 24/7 care. They need to be in a facility. The severe mentally ill, the ones with outbursts need to go into a facility as well. You cannot put these people out on their own as they cannot function.

The criteria for involuntary confinement in California is: "WIC Sec.5150. Under the statute, an individual may be detained when, as the result of a mental disorder, the individual is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or is gravely disabled. Grave disability means a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental disorder, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs or food, clothing and shelter (WIC Sec.5008). The person acting to involuntarily detain an individual must be designated by the county.

You cannot institutionalize a person for ANY reason other than the ones listed above. You may not like that law but it is not going to be changed any time soon

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Gunluvver2

Most people would volunteer to have something other than a cardboard box under a bridge don't you think?

No, I don't agree. As I have said I've worked with the homeless and you would be surprised at how many of them, even though they are impaired with mental illness or substance abuse disorders, want to stay where they are. Certainly they would prefer housing over a cardboard box, but a good number of them have connections locally. It's not uncommon for family members to bring food or cash to their homeless relative but refuse to let them stay in their home because of their disruptive behavior. And to be honest, if I were homeless I would stay where I was rather than accept a bus ride to Hemet

[majoun]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

The criteria for involuntary confinement in California is: "WIC Sec.5150. Under the statute, an individual may be detained when, as the result of a mental disorder, the individual is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or is gravely disabled. Grave disability means a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental disorder, is unable to provide for his or her basic personal needs or food, clothing and shelter (WIC Sec.5008). The person acting to involuntarily detain an individual must be designated by the county.

You cannot institutionalize a person for ANY reason other than the ones listed above. You may not like that law but it is not going to be changed any time soon

If Los Angeles actually had a real police department, it would not be that hard to establish that, let's say, someone who was shooting hard drugs on a sidewalk and bleeding on to said sidewalk was a danger to him or herself. It would not be that hard to establish that those committing acts of violence were dangerous to others. It would not be that hard to establish that the homeless who are convicted sex offenders who have failed to register under Megan's Law are dangers. It would not be hard to establish at all that the homeless who are committing crimes are dangers.

If the LAPD had not surrendered to the homeless the homeless COULD be institutionalized under that law.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

No, I don't agree. As I have said I've worked with the homeless and you would be surprised at how many of them, even though they are impaired with mental illness or substance abuse disorders, want to stay where they are. Certainly they would prefer housing over a cardboard box, but a good number of them have connections locally. It's not uncommon for family members to bring food or cash to their homeless relative but refuse to let them stay in their home because of their disruptive behavior. And to be honest, if I were homeless I would stay where I was rather than accept a bus ride to Hemet

"Homeless by choice" people would stay where they were, especially if they were close to a big dealing area.

Someone who was truly in need would accept a bus ride somewhere else.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by majoun

If Los Angeles actually had a real police department, it would not be that hard to establish that, let's say, someone who was shooting hard drugs on a sidewalk and bleeding on to said sidewalk was a danger to him or herself. It would not be that hard to establish that those committing acts of violence were dangerous to others. It would not be that hard to establish that the homeless who are convicted sex offenders who have failed to register under Megan's Law are dangers. It would not be hard to establish at all that the homeless who are committing crimes are dangers.
If the LAPD had not surrendered to the homeless the homeless COULD be institutionalized under that law.

No, shooting drugs does not constitute a 5150, sorry. People who commit violence or break any laws should be arrested and prosecuted, not 5150'd. Sex offenders who fail to register are tracked, but if they disappear all you can do is issue a warrant and wait for them to show their face. This is not really that complicated, for it's not. Please go back and read the link that I attached to my post on this subject.

[Count David]

Solution: BUILD A WALL

[echoParkDate]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

It's not uncommon for family members to bring food or cash to their homeless relative but refuse to let them stay in their home because of their disruptive behavior.

Unfortunately this can create huge problems. I know of a family in Frogtown that gave food, clothing etc to their drug-addicted son living in the LA river. Unfortunately this guy was a one-man crime wave, stealing from houses in the area and basically terrorizing the neighborhood.

Had they not been helping him out, the guy would probably have been more likely to get into some kind of treatment

[Financialguy]

Desert encampments. Or bonfires...

[Texamichiforniasota]

Nothing is going to happen. The only place where land is cheap enough to be developed into enough units is the Antelope Valley or High Desert, and even then most of the homeless would refuse to go there. You would need several new laws:

1. New State Hospitals opened and those with mental illness that can't take care of themselves and secure shelter (either because they don't have the level of functioning to secure it or because their behavior is such that no landlord will rent to them) are committed long term.

2. Drug use in public spaces is punishable by sentencing to a residential treatment program. If you can function, hold a job, and keep a roof over your head, then this won't apply to you, but if you end up on the street, you'll be shipped off to rehab. Rehab success rates are dismal, but they can just keep getting shipped back so they're off the streets and not breaking into cars and houses to feed their habit.

3. Regular ICE sweeps of homeless encampments. You can come here illegally and work, but if you can't keep a roof over your head, you are deported. The US used to ban those that were a public burden from immigrating, which is a reasonable rule.

These three programs would probably get rid of 75% of the homeless. Of the 25% that is left, a small percent are anarchists that want to live without rules, and most of those will end up in jail for breaking other rules at some point. The majority of the remainder are the people that everyone wants to help, they are down on their luck, and with shelters, social workers, and job training, they have some potential to support themselves in the future. With all the hopeless cases cleared off the streets, there is better chance that the county could focus on these people and get them the services they need.