The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (San Francisco, Orange: swimming, Latinos, Mexicans)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

While LuvSouthOC is thinking about the above, I'm going to chime in.

Decisions among rational people are about choosing from the mutually exclusive alternatives within the choice space.

And a famous economist once said, "The Antelope Valley is neither good nor bad save the alternatives make it look that way." OK, I said that. But I'm famous here on C-D. At least in my own mind.

When life elsewhere becomes unbearable, all of a sudden The Antelope Valley looks great. If, instead, there is plenty of free housing for the taking in, say, Santa Monica -- well, the Antelope Valley doesn't look great.

So the issue isn't merely housing in the Antelope Valley - it is a combination of making life easy in the Antelope Valley via free homeless housing, food, support services, transportation services, etc and actively making it suck elsewhere.

You never did answer, my question was "what percentage"...

But this response of yours; "making it suck somewhere else"? and "when life becomes unbearable" they will go to the Antelope Valley.. Good God do you think that the homeless in LA are living in some kind of utopia? What are you going to take from them to make it suck worse, to make it 'unbearable'? Require that if they sleep outside they can't cover themselves with a blanket?

They don't want your help, you are the one devising schemes to get them out of your way, it's not the other way around. They don't want to move to the craptastic antelope valley in order to get free food or anything else. And you already said your 'caveat' regarding housing was "many rules", so you tell me.. why in the world would any homeless person move to the Antelope Valley and be subjected to your "many rules? Sounds like you want to treat them like prison inmates. I know that if I were homeless I would certainly not be inspired to move to your camp of "many rules"

And you might want to brush up on the constitution because you can't treat people so poorly that they are afraid to stay where they are, and you can't force them to leave a place just because they are homeless, so why not talk about viable solutions instead of fantasizing about these cockamaney solutions.

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

While LuvSouthOC is thinking about the above, I'm going to chime in.

Decisions among rational people are about choosing from the mutually exclusive alternatives within the choice space.

And a famous economist once said, "The Antelope Valley is neither good nor bad save the alternatives make it look that way." OK, I said that. But I'm famous here on C-D. At least in my own mind.

When life elsewhere becomes unbearable, all of a sudden The Antelope Valley looks great. If, instead, there is plenty of free housing for the taking in, say, Santa Monica -- well, the Antelope Valley doesn't look great.

So the issue isn't merely housing in the Antelope Valley - it is a combination of making life easy in the Antelope Valley via free homeless housing, food, support services, transportation services, etc and actively making it suck elsewhere.

Gee I wonder if you lived in the Antelope Valley if you would feel this way?

And as 2Sleepy said, you might want to brush up on the Constitution, you're familiar with that document I hope?

[CA4Now]

Good news: the money is there to treat the mentally ill. Bad news: there's little guidance as to how to spend those tax dollars.

California is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars for mental health programs. Let's put it to use

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Good news: the money is there to treat the mentally ill. Bad news: there's little guidance as to how to spend those tax dollars.

California is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars for mental health programs. Let's put it to use

Have you ever seen a CA government branch, overseeing critical projects involving money, do a good job in allocating funds responsibly?

[jm1982]

The homeless industrial complex is hiring .

Homeless brother and sisters lol

Now Eric can brag about being a job creator .
—-

“Hundreds of jobs are available now, delivering help, hope, and healing to our homeless brothers and sisters. You can help change lives and be a part of the solution”

https://mobile.twitter.com/MayorOfLA...66269986402304

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You never did answer, my question was "what percentage"...

Of course I did - but to get extremely explicit, the answer is "it depends."

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Good God do you think that the homeless in LA are living in some kind of utopia?

Everything is comparative and relative.

Have you ever been to the really bad parts of Mogadishu? The slums of Kolkata or New Delhi? The homeless in LA live very well by comparison.

It is all about comparison.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

And you already said your 'caveat' regarding housing was "many rules"

I think that was someone else who talked about many rules.

We all know the rules are unenforceable on the homeless. The police are not likely to arrest them for rule violations. They wouldn't be evicted for pooping on the lawn next to the dogs or scattering syringes in the flower beds. They won't be held responsible for dumping trash over the balcony or pouring an 80 pound sack of Quickrete in a toilet. When you have little or nothing to lose, there are no practical limits on your behaviour.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

why in the world would any homeless person move to the Antelope Valley and be subjected to your "many rules?

For the same reason any denizen of the slums of Kolkata or New Delhi or Mogadishu would love to move to be homeless in LA: to live a better day-to-day existence.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

And you might want to brush up on the constitution

You might want to brush up on the constitutional amendment process:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

so why not talk about viable solutions instead of fantasizing about these cockamaney solutions.

I have. They are expensive and require a very large capital outlay for permanent infrastructure -- so large and expensive that you don't believe the numbers - you think they are massively flawed. Mutt doesn't believe the number of homeless.

You've proposed parking lots for tents and cars and RVs. I don't believe that is a solution either.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

. Mutt doesn't believe the number of homeless.

You've proposed parking lots for tents and cars and RVs. I don't believe that is a solution either.

Who said I don’t believe the number of homeless?

And, right: parking lots and tents aren’t the solution ... they are parts of a necessarily multi-faceted set of solutions.

I’m traveling at the moment. Will get back to the conversation later.

[Finper]

When they cleared out the river trail and civic center of homeless in OC nobody thought it would work. They gave the homeless 2 choices hotel vouchers or nothing. Most of them chose the hotels. It was a upgrade to the life they were living outside. They even had to be careful because people from all walks of life flocked there trying to get the vouchers. LA has been to weak and bleeding heart for way to long and now they have a true disaster on their hands. LA needs to start ruling the homeless not vice versa. They can probably consult with OC authorities to learn how to get things done.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by Finper

When they cleared out the river trail and civic center of homeless in OC nobody thought it would work. They gave the homeless 2 choices hotel vouchers or nothing. Most of them chose the hotels. It was a upgrade to the life they were living outside. They even had to be careful because people from all walks of life flocked there trying to get the vouchers. LA has been to weak and bleeding heart for way to long and now they have a true disaster on their hands. LA needs to start ruling the homeless not vice versa. They can probably consult with OC authorities to learn how to get things done.

There was a good OP ed by Todd Spitzer about this .
Garcetti had critized OC’s handling of the homeless . In L.A the politicians have been enabling the homeless and its not doing anyone any favors .

One great quote from it

“We don’t accept homelessness as a way of life, and we don’t enable the homeless population.”

In defense of Orange County's 'NIMBY' stance on homelessness

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Who said I don’t believe the number of homeless?

I typed too fast. I think it would be more accurate to say you don't believe in the number of units required steady state that I've said. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I think you said the max number you thought we'd need is about 10,000 units - or was it 10,000 homeless steady-state? Is that fair? Or did I misunderstand?

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

And, right: parking lots and tents aren’t the solution ... they are parts of a necessarily multi-faceted set of solutions.

I’m traveling at the moment. Will get back to the conversation later.

Take your time. Don't reply while driving.