The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (Pomona: low income, commute, courthouse)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by jm1982

How about making it clear they aren’t welcome here from out of state or out of the city ?
We are already full with homeless and if they enter the city of L.A there won’t be tolerance for any little illegal thing they do ?
Or is that too “mean”
The liberal policy is the cause of this mess .
We can’t afford to take care of everyone that wants to come here and enjoy the weather etc .
Enough is enough and a lot of these people are ex cons as the liberal mayor of L.A recently admitted .
It’s a public safety issue .

The supreme court decided that people have a right to travel, both between states and within a state, and that new residents are entitled to the same benefits as a long term resident.

In 1969 The Supreme Court found that Connecticut was violating the constitutional guarantee of right to travel when they required new residents to wait for one year before applying for social service benefits
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/9

In 1999 California lost a Supreme Court case because they were giving new residents who were on welfare the benefits they received in the state they last received welfare in as long as it was lower than California's welfare grant. The court ruled that states can't treat new residents differently than they do long term residents.
http://https://www.nytimes.com/1999/...fare-case.html

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

The success is that every night a homeless person is sheltered is a night when they are not crapping on the sidewalk or discarding needles in the park.

And I've not made any excuses I'm trying to discuss realistic solutions that are not terribly expensive but will get people off the streets. It's only when they are off the streets that those who are able to get jobs will find them. No one is going to hire a homeless person who hasn't showered in two weeks and shows up for the interview with a shopping cart. If you want to call that making excuses, then so be it...I consider it dealing with the reality of the situation as it exists rather than continually talking about institutionalization while totally ignoring both the cost and the legality of it.

Not terribly expensive ? Yet you aren’t for housing the homeless in the Antelope Valley or Sacramento.
Both places that would allow more homeless to be housed for less money than the city of L.A...

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Not terribly expensive ? Yet you aren’t for housing the homeless in the Antelope Valley or Sacramento.
Both places that would allow more homeless to be housed for less money than the city of L.A...

Let's try to be serious. Sacramento has its own homeless problem, cities can't just export people they find offensive to some other city. Go right ahead and move them to the Antelope Valley, that's a great idea as long as the homeless are willing to live there.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Let's try to be serious. Sacramento has its own homeless problem, cities can't just export people they find offensive to some other city. Go right ahead and move them to the Antelope Valley, that's a great idea as long as the homeless are willing to live there.

So the Antelope Valley isn’t good enough for the homeless ? Even though many working people live there?

So if the homeless demand to live in Beverly Hills or Malibu they have to be housed there ?

Please post that law .

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

The success is that every night a homeless person is sheltered is a night when they are not crapping on the sidewalk or discarding needles in the park.

They are sheltered in the park in their tents and they still found over 14,000 needles in that 2 mile tent camp.

Most homeless get their assistance yanked due to the fact that they can't abide by the simple conditions. The police that work with the homeless here showed me many cases of such behavior.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

And I've not made any excuses I'm trying to discuss realistic solutions that are not terribly expensive but will get people off the streets. It's only when they are off the streets that those who are able to get jobs will find them.

Right living in a tent city is really getting folks off the streets. They can work general labor jobs and find ways to clean up and even rent a cheap motel room or share one with another buddy who decides to take a general contractor job until they can get back on their feet. You just want everyone to think they have no way to help themselves. They are very resourceful...you can't build camps like the ones we see if you are not resourceful. They can use tools, haul lots of stuff into their camps, steal bikes and start a bike chop shop, find drugs, traffic women and children. But according to you they just can't use any of their resourcefulness to get off the street. Pure Rubbish!

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

No one is going to hire a homeless person who hasn't showered in two weeks and shows up for the interview with a shopping cart.

Interesting the homeless camps all around my area host clean folks. I wonder where they are getting their showers from? Also they don't push around carts as they have all of their stuff piled high in the camps they live in. The homeless are very resourceful and can find a way to keep themselves clean if they really wanted to.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

If you want to call that making excuses, then so be it...I consider it dealing with the reality of the situation as it exists rather than continually talking about institutionalization while totally ignoring both the cost and the legality of it.

No one is ignoring the costs. Look at the billions being spent to clean up their filth and provide housing for them and most will never succeed even if given free housing and free everything else. CA has the money...it just misappropriates it. I've seen this crap since moving here 9 years ago from a state that has no state income tax and from a city that has beautiful roads and no out of control homeless nightmare as you seen in CA where the state takes in 65% for the General Fund from a state income tax. Interesting that the major cities in Texas have good roads/freeways, lower taxes, lower car registration, lower COL, clean city streets and freeways/highways/ no out of control homeless issues, not many folks constantly whining about state issues as you see in the CA threads. CA is a joke and the government here is a joke but its the people of this state who have their heads in the sand and actually think CA can't afford to institutionalize the mentally ill. Total nonsense. This state hosts the most dysfunctional society I have ever lived in.

Something is wrong with the government here to take in so much money and then fund pensions vs. helping improve city streets and deal with the homeless mess. As more high-income folks get sick of this oppressive bad money spending government and pack up and leave the deeper the issues in CA are going to become as the people who earn nothing or very little are not going to make up for the companies and high income folks who are leaving. Sit there and gloat on your pension as the rest of CA continues looking more and more like a 3rd world county. Union and pension mentalities have ruined this state.

1,000 People a Day: Why Red States Are Getting Richer and Blue States Poorer

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by jm1982

So the Antelope Valley isn’t good enough for the homeless ? Even though many working people live there? So if the homeless demand to live in Beverly Hills or Malibu they have to be housed there ? Please post that law .

You can't force them to live anywhere that they don't want to live. You want to know what laws dictate that, try reading the Privileges and Immunity Clause of the Constitution and the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments.

The people who live in Antelope Valley do so because they want to, no one is forcing them to stay there. If you want to build homeless camps there and the homeless want to live in them then that's terrific, but you can't put fences and guard dogs around the perimeter and keep them from leaving. If you have a homeless problem in Beverly Hills or Malibu and don't provide shelter a reasonable distance from where the homeless are they are unlikely to utilize the shelter, so there's not much point in building one 30 miles away is there?

[TCROX]

EVERYONE knows why the left need to keep this problem in everyone's face. They THINK housing the crime and filth near cities means they can perpetually scream for, and then steal more money.
Housing the "homeless" / dirty jerry's army near people is NOT a solution, it IS an escalation..... the problems and deterioration of the situation are well mapped out. ... out of sight means no cry for more resources.. we know the drill all too well eh?
Thankfully, the ignoble left have failed to perceive the strength and determination of the decent taxpayers that want to actually help those in need and KNOW that ONLY by removing them from the flow of drugs and alcohol and the temptation to commit crimes can they have any real choice for a meaningful life. The lefties will lie and accuse good people of wanting to remove their hapless minions from society-- nobody listens to you anymore.. we WILL change this for the better..
jerry's army is ambling and shuffling its way into areas not yet destroyed, like the suburbs, they are bivouacked in the washes, vacant buildings,etc and claiming territory not yet despoiled. nobody is stopping them.... they are free spirits to do what they will it seems-- sick and hungry .... ahhhhh maybe they will put up tents... dirty jerry and friends ...your morality and motives are conspicuous...
the lefties can fuss and bluster here and anywhere else--- we will be ready when you want to join us. the left once were a great part of helping people in the mental health and criminal justice systems... some of those in need can be restored and we would like your help... this is an awful mess and you have proven you have very unkind plans for the "homeless", the good people of California, and the US- too much hideous behavior is going on all over all the time now because of you- it can't be fixed by you and you know it.... it s clean up time and it obviously should not be done your way. We won't stop till this is done right and those in need get the care they need in a place that makes sense for everyone and at a cost that will not include the use of in-your face oppressive tactics. Agree or disagree-- like I said before...you are ONLY lubing yourselves from now on..

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You can't force them to live anywhere that they don't want to live.

However there are laws that are not being enforced that would put a stop to them living where they want to live...which is on public property which results in obstructions that hinder the city from preserving public property for its intended purpose.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Matadora

However there are laws that are not being enforced that would put a stop to them living where they want to live.

In LA due to a court settlement they can't arrest them for sleeping on the street unless there is available shelter space, Pomona recently had a similar issue and the court ruled the same way.

"Homeless residents of Pomona will be provided storage for their property and will be allowed to sleep in public spaces until shelter beds exist for all of them, following the settlement of a lawsuit challenging the city's practice of homeless cleanups. The settlement parallels a similar legal battle in Los Angeles a decade ago. A federal appeals court ruled that L.A.'s practice of arresting and ticketing homeless people for sleeping in public was a violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment because these residents had no other place to spend the night."
Pomona settles lawsuit over confiscation of homeless people's property

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Signed into law by this guy:

Is he comparable to "Hitler" now?

No, "he" is not, because no one was referring to Gov. Brown.

And there's a major difference, Cali. The PATIENT requests it due to a terminal illness ....that's what the End of Life Option Act is about. It has nothing to do with your suggestion about the homeless.

https://www.deathwithdignity.org/states/california/