The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (Blythe: violent crime, statistics, land)

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Yes. And as I said: there were 9 articles provided for you to argue against. The multiple sources were provided expressly to provide many answers if any one was questioned.

You asked for calculations to support housing the homeless over leaving them on the streets. You were given lots. You don't like one? Pick apart the others.

If you're not going to fact check your sources, then I'm certainly not going to do it. The Mic article was completely devoid of details and lacked any real accuracy in describing the costs.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Sure. I never argued against that.

Roflmfao ... yes you did. That was exactly what you were arguing against. Anyone can go back through the exchange you started with CA4Now and then continued with me and read the backstroking you have tried to present as breaststroking.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Roflmfao ... yes you did. That was exactly what you were arguing against. Anyone can go back through the exchange you started with CA4Now and then continued with me and read the backstroking you have tried to present as breaststroking.

I argued that landlords should be able to skip contractual obligations with tenants? Where?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

If you're not going to fact check your sources, then I'm certainly not going to do it. The Mic article was completely devoid of details and lacked any real accuracy in describing the costs.

If you find details lacking to CaliRestoration's desires ... um, there are 8 more examples to read. You asked. I provided. And, as I said previously, I stand ready to back up the Q&A all day long if you'd like with more references. To say nothing of your objections to the Moore Place being questions you felt were left unanswered ... not factual fallacies.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

I argued that landlords should be able to skip contractual obligations with tenants? Where?

Throughout the entire exchange. You argued that landlords are being unfairly burdened by having to pay unreasonable relocation costs. They're not unreasonable - as I have shown.

Do you think if you hop around enough readers will lose track of your self-contradictions?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I stand ready to back up the Q&A all day long if you'd like with more references. To say nothing of your objections to the Moore Place being questions you felt were left unanswered ... not factual fallacies.

Okay, so answer those questions about Moore Place.

- Where did the $39,000 figure come from?
- What is 30% of benefits in dollar amount?
- How much costs are incurred by administering the program (staffing, regulatory compliance, etc)?

Let's start with those.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Throughout the entire exchange. You argued that landlords are being unfairly burdened by having to pay unreasonable relocation costs.

No I did not (that's why it's important to read the entire thread rather than comment without context).

I made the point that not paying for costs OUTSIDE of the 4 exclusions would not have a large effect on most of the renting population. The reason CA made those 4 exclusions is because it's an extremely renter friendly state, and they knew it would cover the majority of non-problematic evictions. Most actual landlords (such as myself who owns multiple rental properties in high demand areas) know this to be true.

The only actually debate (not the one you somehow ended up trying to make) was whether the 4 exclusions covered enough of the rental population or not.

I believe it does.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Okay, so answer those questions about Moore Place.

- Where did the $39,000 figure come from?
- What is 30% of benefits in dollar amount?
- How much costs are incurred by administering the program (staffing, regulatory compliance, etc)?

Let's start with those.

First you need to respond to the issue that brought us here: cost vs cost challenge brought you multiple references and promises of more. Priorities, Cali old buddy. You're just jumping around as usual trying to distract and deflect as usual.

You want to argue missing pieces of one article? Fine. I'll come back to that if you want after we finish the plate you've already been served. You don't like the sauce on the lima beans? Set that aside and eat the rest first.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

No I did not (that's why it's important to read the entire thread rather than comment without context).

I made the point that not paying for costs OUTSIDE of the 4 exclusions would not have a large effect on most of the renting population. The reason CA made those 4 exclusions is because it's an extremely renter friendly state, and they knew it would cover the majority of non-problematic evictions. Most actual landlords (such as myself who owns multiple rental properties in high demand areas) know this to be true.

The only actually debate (not the one you somehow ended up trying to make) was whether the 4 exclusions covered enough of the rental population or not.

I believe it does.

Circular nonsense never stops with you. I'll be back. Have to go now.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You want to argue missing pieces of one article? Fine. I'll come back to that if you want after we finish the plate you've already been served. You don't like the sauce on the lima beans? Set that aside and eat the rest first.

Lima beans? What are you talking about? You know trolling is against the TOS here right?

We're talking about the cost to society of letting homeless roam free versus having to house/feed them on taxpayer dime.

The Moore Place situation you referenced is ambiguous at best, and if you include the $6 million start up costs (plus $4 million additional cost they plan to add to the budget to add 25 more units), it seems there really is no cost savings at all.