How would YOU resolve LA's homeless problem? (Los Angeles, Sacramento: fingerprints, high crime)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

What you get is mostly the government you deserve. Even more so for those who don't vote.

No. What I would get is the government YOU deserve. And I am not supporting your bid for such dysfunction.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Why should people with a criminal record be denied access to a shelter? We don't ordinarily segregate people with criminal records from the rest of us, do we, they shop in the same stores as the rest of us, stay in the same motels, and as far as I know there was no background check conducted on me when I bought my home.

The simple fact is that if the only housing offered is a cot for the night in a huge warehouses with no privacy or storage facilities for their belongings they are going to reject it, just as you or I would.

Your criminal record can be the cause of denial for employment (a pedophile can't be a teacher). A person with a history of stealing isn't going to be selected to work at a bank.

And for rentals, they ask for your social security number and they certainly run criminal background checks on prospective tenants. Credit checks, and employment and income verification too.

Actual affordable housing runs all these checks on prospective tenants, including requiring that income must be in a certain range.

But back to shelters, men are segregated from being housed with women in children due to the high risk of RAPE.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Not necessarily , if you are a sex offender you have to register . At least in CA. There is Megan's law .
You lose some freedom when you commit crimes against innocent people and children and I don't think that's a bad thing .

Unfortunately there are some very bad people in this world and there is evil . You just have to look at the news and see the horrible acts some people do against others , even against their own kids .

Yes it would be great if everyone behaved and were decent people but this isn't the reality .

Also you mentioned people would reject a place to sleep / shelter without having storage etc .
There is an old saying , not politically correct .. But beggars can't be choosers .

Sex offenders have to register nationwide, and yes serious criminal backgrounds like that cause people to be denied employment or shelter. Would you want a sex offender teaching your children? Would you hire a thief to work in a bank?

Likewise as I noted in another post, adult men are not in shelters with women or children because of the high probability that rapes would occur.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

JM of course sex offenders have to register and they have restrictions on where they can live, what does that have to do with my statement? There are NO housing restrictions on ex-felons other than sex registrants so what exactly are you trying to say, that if we keep sex offenders out of shelters the shelters will be safe?

The homeless are not staging demonstrations or rioting to get housing they are simply sleeping in the place that they consider to be the safest and most convenient, and as long as city and county officials think that offering an insect infested cot to a homeless person is a 'solution" to homelessness, then homelessness will persist.

It may actually help to put people with violent tendencies in housing separate from other homeless people. Perhaps the violent people can be medicated. Of course screening and assessing the homeless like this would be extremely expensive, which is why it isn't current done. There's no morality behind this.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

I think you missed my point. Everything I said agrees with your statement above. You added a bit (bugs, assaults, theft) which I also agree with.

My main point is that very few homeless people want to go to shelters. Maybe a few more would go if they had good security and mini-rooms with just a bed, night stand, and uni-sink-and-toilet like they have in jails, with a lock on the inside, but IMO most still wouldn't go.

I've talked with a few homeless people and all they want is gimme some money, which I'm sure they will spend on alcohol or drugs instead of food or shelter.

Most homeless people are homeless because they don't want shelters. If you are talking about sane people who want to work and want homes, then we should be discussing welfare and job training for those types.

Unfortunately there are no jobs. I won't get into a political discussion on why that is.

Absolutely not true. There are jobs to the point where immigrants come here for those jobs.

You need to address why these people felt out of the workforce. Addiction, lack of education, criminal records, and other issues.

Of course discrimination is a factor. LGBTQ people, particularly transgender people are particularly vulnerable to homelessness.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

Your criminal record can be the cause of denial for employment (a pedophile can't be a teacher). A person with a history of stealing isn't going to be selected to work at a bank. And for rentals, they ask for your social security number and they certainly run criminal background checks on prospective tenants. Credit checks, and employment and income verification too.
Actual affordable housing runs all these checks on prospective tenants, including requiring that income must be in a certain range. But back to shelters, men are segregated from being housed with women in children due to the high risk of RAPE.

One of the reasons for homelessness is a criminal history. Once you have a felony on your record it becomes difficult to impossible to get a job or find an apartment. So your solution is to do background checks on the homeless and deny anyone with a prior record a cot in a shelter? that's just brilliant.

And yes, men are segregated from women in shelters, but that does not prevent assault or theft or keep occupants from being exposed to disease and insect infestations, does it? Most shelters are miserable and not fit for human habitation. Almost all of them kick everyone out at 6 or 7 AM and they aren't allowed back in until 9 or 10 at night, it is not a substitution for housing.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

It may actually help to put people with violent tendencies in housing separate from other homeless people. Perhaps the violent people can be medicated. Of course screening and assessing the homeless like this would be extremely expensive, which is why it isn't current done. There's no morality behind this.

How would you do this screening? If you have 100 cots to fill up and people start standing in line for them at 8 PM how long do you think it will take to run 100 criminal histories and then have someone evaluate each one to determine if a person should be denied a bed because of their past? And what do you do about violent people who have never been convicted of a crime? Maybe we should have a psychologist on board who can do a psych evaluation on everyone who wants a bed to measure their potential for committing a violent act?

The solution is to provide long term housing with supportive services. Long term housing can be a single room without any amenities but it would have a lock on the door and a place to sit down an a bed to sleep on. It would be a place you can stay in past 6 AM unlike shelters which you get booted out of every morning, and it's a place you could leave your belongings if you wanted to leave the premises.

[Finper]

How is the state supposed to pay for homeless housing??? Maybe they can reduce Union pensions??? Oh yea that's impossible

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Finper

How is the state supposed to pay for homeless housing??? Maybe they can reduce Union pensions??? Oh yea that's impossible

Don't know how many times it needs to be pointed out before you and others here take notice that Housing First programs cost 25% - 50% less than what is already budgeted and spent. So how about NOT increasing any budget but serving more people better than now? Get it? Make any sense?

For cryin out loud.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

One of the reasons for homelessness is a criminal history. Once you have a felony on your record it becomes difficult to impossible to get a job or find an apartment. So your solution is to do background checks on the homeless and deny anyone with a prior record a cot in a shelter? that's just brilliant.

And yes, men are segregated from women in shelters, but that does not prevent assault or theft or keep occupants from being exposed to disease and insect infestations, does it? Most shelters are miserable and not fit for human habitation. Almost all of them kick everyone out at 6 or 7 AM and they aren't allowed back in until 9 or 10 at night, it is not a substitution for housing.

Well the current situation in shelters is so terrible that people would rather rot on the street, so that should tell you something right there.

I get that you want the federal government and the state to pay for massive new housing for the homeless, but taxpayers are against that. Honestly if these people were placed into high rise apartments, they would trash the buildings. Having visited people inside public housing in NYC, these types would urinate and defecate inside buildings.

So wherever you put a bunch of garbage people together, it is going to be bad. So yes, don't bother with screening. They are all scum and let the current situation stand. Is that what you want to hear?