The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (San Francisco, Palmdale: remodeling, opportunities, volunteer)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by USDefault

You demand acceptance. You demand inaction. You demand everything from productive members of society, yet demand nothing from the lazy, from the criminals, from the drug abusers. Excuse after excuse after excuse after excuse after excuse, explaining away criminality and laziness.

Nope you are wrong. Here is what I have said and will continue to say because it's true. Provide shelter for the homeless or get used to walking over them on your way to work. LA provides shelter for 1/4 of it's homeless, no court in the US is going to allow them to criminalize sleeping in public until they can offer shelter to all of their homeless.

So instead of all the hyperbole, why don't you tell us what can legally be done, right now today that isn't being done? I'll be right here waiting....

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by USDefault

Just look at the hypocrisy, a trait shared by all the lazy, crime, and drug abuse apologists. Believes everyone else should accept the homeless near their homes, around their places of work, and anywhere else the homeless decide to invade and destroy, but not his own zone of residence, or his daugther's AirBnB.


So follow the laughably distorted logic: apologists demand businesses and the public accept crime, rampant drug abuse, and all manner of abhorrent behavior by the homeless where you work, live, travel, congregate. Homeless are accosting you every day? Too bad, accept it, it's the compassionate thing to do. So you ask these apologists: "why don't you invite this same behavior where you live and reside? If you demand the public accept disgusting behavior on our streets, and our workplaces, why don't you shoulder some of this burden where you live and reside? Why not have a taste of the medicine you prescribe?" Apologist's answer: oh, not us. That's not "sensible." It's "obviously stupid."


Wrong. I say again, wrong. I say a thousand times, wrong. It's not "obviously stupid." It most certainly is sensible. It exposes the rank hypocrisy of the apologists and their policy prescriptions. Do "x," so long as "x" doesn't impact me. This is the sine qua non of "the do as I say, not as I do" mentality. "Criminality and drug abuse for thee, peace and quiet for me." The apologist's creed and code.

Originally Posted by USDefault

You demand acceptance. You demand inaction. You demand everything from productive members of society, yet demand nothing from the lazy, from the criminals, from the drug abusers. Excuse after excuse after excuse after excuse after excuse, explaining away criminality and laziness.

Wow . Someone could use a bong hit ... maybe avoid an aneurism?


Default ... please quote where I, or anyone here, has said everyone else should accept the homeless and disgusting behaviors near their homes, work or play? Where did I say anything about my daughter’s B&B and the homeless? Really. Quotes, bro. Let’s read ‘em.

Where has anyone demanded acceptance? Inaction? Quotes bro. Quotes ... or you’re hallucinating?

As for “demanding nothing from the lazy ... criminals ... drug abusers ...”. Um, roflmmfao?
Default, you can demand till you are blue in the face and pass out ... and if they don’t respond to your demands, then what? I’ll tell you what: you find yourself face down, passed out from hyperventilating ... and the lazy criminal drug abusers are laughing at you and picking your pockets while you try to catch your breath.

Demanding responsibility from persons who are sick, addicted, and criminally habituated is ... well ... stupid. Yes.

No one here has been “explaining [the behaviors] away”. A few of us have been doing what we can to educate hyperbolic, hair on fire alarmists as to the limitations and options that must be addressed to deal with the problems.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Nope you are wrong. Here is what I have said and will continue to say because it's true. Provide shelter for the homeless or get used to walking over them on your way to work. LA provides shelter for 1/4 of it's homeless, no court in the US is going to allow them to criminalize sleeping in public until they can offer shelter to all of their homeless.

So instead of all the hyperbole, why don't you tell us what can legally be done, right now today that isn't being done? I'll be right here waiting....

Beat me to it

[jm1982]

Article about HHH likely to fall short of what was promised during campaign . Surprise surprise Garcetti sold the voters another bill of goods .

Also some interesting comments on curbed . I remember the commentators used to have a very liberal attitude towards these high cost homeless projects , but not so much anymore

—-
Ballot measure to help homeless in LA may fall short of its goal
https://la.curbed.com/2018/7/23/1758...ness-unit-cost

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Article about HHH likely to fall short of what was promised during campaign . Surprise surprise Garcetti sold the voters another bill of goods .

Also some interesting comments on curbed . I remember the commentators used to have a very liberal attitude towards these high cost homeless projects , but not so much anymore

—-
Ballot measure to help homeless in LA may fall short of its goal
https://la.curbed.com/2018/7/23/1758...ness-unit-cost

Imagine that, even liberal voters don't want to have to pay to house bums which in turn raises crime, lowers property values and makes areas less safe for kids, etc.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Imagine that, even liberal voters don't want to have to pay to house bums which in turn raises crime, lowers property values and makes areas less safe for kids, etc.

Yeah shocking . I don’t know why people don’t want the scenario below for their neighborhoods..

—
Dave reported routinely observing human defecation, public masturbation, gang beatings, drug use and prostitution.

"People are moving out ... because they were tired of waking up in the morning and stepping in human feces," Dave said.

Homeless crime intensifying in West Hollywood | abc7.com

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Nope you are wrong. Here is what I have said and will continue to say because it's true. Provide shelter for the homeless or get used to walking over them on your way to work. LA provides shelter for 1/4 of it's homeless, no court in the US is going to allow them to criminalize sleeping in public until they can offer shelter to all of their homeless.

So instead of all the hyperbole, why don't you tell us what can legally be done, right now today that isn't being done? I'll be right here waiting....

Los Angeles has a lot of underutilized land supportive housing and apartment buildings can be built on. It has to be built throughout the region and NOT just concentrated in a few areas, which will cause a separate set of issues.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by Falls14303

I spent some time in DTLA and was reading about homeless people whose tents are being set on fire. It's a miracle that none of those fires have spread to some of those old wooden buildings behind the sidewalk and taken out a whole block. Is this the work of a drug dealer/gang member seeking revenge or just some random crazy person?

I was looking at some of the comments here and a few pages back someone referenced homeless GLBT youth that end up in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Working at the YMCA/YWCA housing and outreach for years in Niagara Falls, NY I can say that personally, I've noticed the following happen over the last few years: many GLBT people (remember, it's not just 'youth' in crisis; I've worked with 30/40-year-olds who've come out, lost their family and housing and have had to start over with nothing) - anyways, they went to NYC or LA or SF with the mistake in thinking the 'GLBT community' would be there for them. Unfortunately they ran into two problems: in 2018, most people who are going to those three cities are very successful and have money as opposed to, say, 1974 when people would hitchhike across the country to end up in those cities. Today, there is no readily available SRO housing in any of those cities. The waiting list in NYC is a decade long, if not longer. The 'gay community' mostly is not interested in dealing with low or no income individuals - those highly gay populated areas are the most expensive and exclusionary in each city. Back in the mid-1970's, there were places like the 'Y' in downtowns and gay villages that rented sleeping rooms for people getting off the streets. Today those buildings have been renovated into million dollar condos. If you have no money or home you won't find anything.
So what we have seen, in cities like Niagara Falls, or Duluth, Minnesota especially, is the new destination for homeless affected or street involved gay youth because there are no housing wait lists, their downtown areas are safe, these cities are largely liberal-leaning and have a high university and student culture. While they aren't as glamorous as LA/NY/SF, the shelters are safe. There are programs for transgendered individuals. There are places where they will help you get health insurance and into counselling (that week!). The police force is trained and have a GLBT liaison officer. I think what works in smaller cities is that gay people experiencing homelessness don't get lost in the paperwork or in the thousands of cases that cause these decade long wait lists. It's just not possible to find these kinds of services anymore in the cities that used to be kind of a port of entry for GLBT youth.

Also once those gay youth get the relevant help they need in those cities, should they desire they can study at those universities. Thank you for mentioning how it's often better for LGBT youth to seek out help and services in smaller cities, and this is true for anyone fleeing abuse or marginalization. Those services may not be available in one's hometown, but they are available in certain smaller cities throughout the country.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Nope you are wrong. Here is what I have said and will continue to say because it's true. Provide shelter for the homeless or get used to walking over them on your way to work. LA provides shelter for 1/4 of it's homeless, no court in the US is going to allow them to criminalize sleeping in public until they can offer shelter to all of their homeless.

So instead of all the hyperbole, why don't you tell us what can legally be done, right now today that isn't being done? I'll be right here waiting....

I agree you cannot criminalize sleeping outside if there's no place for those people to sleep. That does not mean people have to be allowed to erect tent cities. The state legislature should make them illegal.

And yes, Los Angeles dramatically underspends on shelter/supportive housing for the homeless.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Imagine that, even liberal voters don't want to have to pay to house bums which in turn raises crime, lowers property values and makes areas less safe for kids, etc.

That wasn't the problem though in that link. Apparently the funds weren't spent appropriately. Voters voted for 10,000 units of supportive housing, so far only 2,100 have been built. They are saying they may build only 6,000. Talk about serious breach of trust.

They'll need to either ask for federal or state funding, or give out tax credits to get private developers in on the action to ENSURE that they build at least 10,000 units of supportive housing.