The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (Orange: change, crime, closing)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Oh brother. I don't need your definitions, but policy makers need definitions before them commit our funds to helping the various homeless categories and I would like to know how they will handle all the different categories including the homeless scammers -- yes they exist. Kttam convinced me (like no one else could) in another thread that we need to take action to help the two categories of legitimate homeless but I want to know how we will handle scammers. According to Kttam, the scammers are about a third. Will they be prosecuted? Will we be investigating them? How are public monies going to be protected from going to the many scammers? They are a large portion of the group seeking help.

Who is Kttam? I searched for a user named "Kttam" and can't find one, could you cite one of their posts where they make the claim about 1/3 of homeless being 'scammers'? I find that an odd claim because there are so few services available I don't think a 'scammer' would get much from whatever 'scamming' they are doing.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Sounds like she’s a PR person to me ... if there ever was one. Public Relations / outreach officer.

Get with it, Mutt....she's busy providing holiday crime prevention tips in Brentwood.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Who is Kttam? I searched for a user named "Kttam" and can't find one, could you cite one of their posts where they make the claim about 1/3 of homeless being 'scammers'? I find that an odd claim because there are so few services available I don't think a 'scammer' would get much from whatever 'scamming' they are doing.

She works with the homeless and has posted on the Orange County sub forum; see the most recent post on the homeless thread there.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Oh brother. I don't need your definitions, but policy makers need definitions before them commit our funds to helping the various homeless categories and I would like to know how they will handle all the different categories including the homeless scammers -- yes they exist. Kttam convinced me (like no one else could) in another thread that we need to take action to help the two categories of legitimate homeless but I want to know how we will handle scammers. According to Kttam, the scammers are about a third. Will they be prosecuted? Will we be investigating them? How are public monies going to be protected from going to the many scammers? They are a large portion of the group seeking help.

OC, you are obviously being obtuse intentionally. I have linked you many many times to the definitions from HUD that all homeless agencies use.

Of course there are “scammers” of sorts. So what? There are scammers in every aspect of life. Your POTUS choice is a prime example. Unlike him, however, the homeless “scammers”, like scammers in most aspects of life, are part of life but do not dominate.

I don’t know why I or anyone else should continue to respond to you on this topic. You implore that you’d “like to know” how they will be handled ... how “public money will be protected” ... yadda yadda yadda ... as if YOU are interested in being supportive. But any review of your postings clearly shows you are nothing but antagonistic toward the homeless (and all sorts of other categories of people) and have absolutely zero intention of being personally involved in problem resolutions. You are obviously just in these threads to abraisively denigrate and taunt. Problem is, you can’t back up any of your claims and attacks.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

OC, you are obviously being obtuse intentionally. I have linked you many many times to the definitions from HUD that all homeless agencies use.

Of course there are “scammers” of sorts. So what? There are scammers in every aspect of life. Your POTUS choice is a prime example. Unlike him, however, the homeless “scammers”, like scammers in most aspects of life, are part of life but do not dominate.

I don’t know why I or anyone else should continue to respond to you on this topic. You implore that you’d “like to know” how they will be handled ... how “public money will be protected” ... yadda yadda yadda ... as if YOU are interested in being supportive. But any review of your postings clearly shows you are nothing but antagonistic toward the homeless (and all sorts of other categories of people) and have absolutely zero intention of being personally involved in problem resolutions. You are obviously just in these threads to abraisively denigrate and taunt. Problem is, you can’t back up any of your claims and attacks.

If a person closely associated with the homeless in LA says that 2/3 are legit and in need of help, ok. But there is another third and your blather does not address them and the expense tax payers must bear. One third is a huge number.

Note that the 1/3 figure comes from a person on the ground.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

She works with the homeless and has posted on the Orange County sub forum; see the most recent post on the homeless thread there.

Not a she.

[CA4Now]

This pilot program, which would pay homeless people $13/hour to pick up trash, sounds hopeful.

The pilot is designed to help homeless people who have trouble latching on to even the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/edit...120-story.html

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

If a person closely associated with the homeless in LA says that 2/3 are legit and in need of help, ok. But there is another third and your blather does not address them and the expense tax payers must bear. One third is a huge number.

Note that the 1/3 figure comes from a person on the ground.

That ⅓ figure needs to be credibly backed up. I have sympathy for Kittam in his/her work. S/he is specifically tasked with processing the very programs that are most likely to draw the scammers you are referencing. I have no doubt it is frustrating and infuriating. Nevertheless, personal experience “on the ground” can skew POV. The larger bodies of research on the topic are foundational ... not an individual worker’s daily job experience in a segment of the field.

Example: when I was air crew in Vietnam I served in RESCAP/SAR (Rescue Combat Air Patrol / Search and Rescue). We flew close air support search and destroy sorties every day, absolutely demolishing the countryside in general while we were always on call for assisting rescue of other pilots and crews that were downed. From our perspective right smack in the middle of this constant conflagration we destroyed every possible enemy bridge, oil tank, ammunition dump, convoy, etc etc.

Yet every next day there were more.

The facts were, a very great deal of what we were blowing up was fake. Constructed by Charlie like stage sets. Our incredible statistics weren’t real, in spite of our experience right in the middle of the fire, even as our planes were taking hits and going down.

Back up the claim of 1/3rd. Those of us who read the studies and research don’t find any such number.

And don’t come back with your tired old accusations of government bias / self-interest / conspiracy either. If you think that’s what’s behind the studies of all the professional sociologists - PROVE IT with some credible rebuttal. Show us a counter study professionally conducted by an independent body with expertise.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

That ⅓ figure needs to be credibly backed up. I have sympathy for Kittam in his/her work. S/he is specifically tasked with processing the very programs that are most likely to draw the scammers you are referencing. I have no doubt it is frustrating and infuriating. Nevertheless, personal experience “on the ground” can skew POV. The larger bodies of research on the topic are foundational ... not an individual worker’s daily job experience in a segment of the field.

Example: when I was air crew in Vietnam I served in RESCAP/SAR (Rescue Combat Air Patrol / Search and Rescue). We flew close air support search and destroy sorties every day, absolutely demolishing the countryside in general while we were always on call for assisting rescue of other pilots and crews that were downed. From our perspective right smack in the middle of this constant conflagration we destroyed every possible enemy bridge, oil tank, ammunition dump, convoy, etc etc.

Yet every next day there were more.

The facts were, a very great deal of what we were blowing up was fake. Constructed by Charlie like stage sets. Our incredible statistics weren’t real, in spite of our experience right in the middle of the fire, even as our planes were taking hits and going down.

Back up the claim of 1/3rd. Those of us who read the studies and research don’t find any such number.

And don’t come back with your tired old accusations of government bias / self-interest / conspiracy either. If you think that’s what’s behind the studies of all the professional sociologists - PROVE IT with some credible rebuttal. Show us a counter study professionally conducted by an independent body with expertise.

Someone who is working with them makes these claims and you want me to give you data huh?

[Finper]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

That ⅓ figure needs to be credibly backed up. I have sympathy for Kittam in his/her work. S/he is specifically tasked with processing the very programs that are most likely to draw the scammers you are referencing. I have no doubt it is frustrating and infuriating. Nevertheless, personal experience “on the ground” can skew POV. The larger bodies of research on the topic are foundational ... not an individual worker’s daily job experience in a segment of the field.

Example: when I was air crew in Vietnam I served in RESCAP/SAR (Rescue Combat Air Patrol / Search and Rescue). We flew close air support search and destroy sorties every day, absolutely demolishing the countryside in general while we were always on call for assisting rescue of other pilots and crews that were downed. From our perspective right smack in the middle of this constant conflagration we destroyed every possible enemy bridge, oil tank, ammunition dump, convoy, etc etc.

Yet every next day there were more.

The facts were, a very great deal of what we were blowing up was fake. Constructed by Charlie like stage sets. Our incredible statistics weren’t real, in spite of our experience right in the middle of the fire, even as our planes were taking hits and going down.

Back up the claim of 1/3rd. Those of us who read the studies and research don’t find any such number.

And don’t come back with your tired old accusations of government bias / self-interest / conspiracy either. If you think that’s what’s behind the studies of all the professional sociologists - PROVE IT with some credible rebuttal. Show us a counter study professionally conducted by an independent body with expertise.

lol only you would take some stat over what a person sees with their own eyes in the LA trenches everyday.