The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (Riverside, Orange: places to live, law, safety)

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by majoun

1979 was not the mid-seventies.

Did anyone say it was? Somehow you got fixated on the year 1975.

Originally Posted by majoun

I know very well when Santa Monica adopted rent control (an idiotic decision)

Then why argue over and over again that there was no rent control in Santa Monica then?

Originally Posted by majoun

No rent control in the mid seventies in California

Originally Posted by majoun

In the time period youre talking about there was no rent control anywhere in California and there had not been any since Truman was president.

Originally Posted by majoun

If nobody you knew had an answering machine maybe you were shooting your money into your arm

Unbelievable comment.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

You can't be serious.

"...one of the points explained to me is the great distinction between sub-populations of the homeless. Some are temporarily homeless because of bad breaks, but the chronic homeless are out there for reasons that are not temporary or transient.

The real tragedy is that the temporarily homeless, who may be on the street through no fault of their own, are forced to share the same turf with the chronic homeless.

If you persuade a good-sized population of people from the chronic group to go live at Camp Whatever, they will bring their chronic problems with them to camp. Concentrate them in a camp, and you will have concentrated all of those serious mental health and crime challenges there as well. Then think of also sweeping up the temporary homeless and putting them there.

And then what? Tell me again why it’s better to have temporarily homeless people herded into a distant camp with people who have serious mental, drug and criminal problems, all of them concentrated together out on the edge of the city where nobody can see them rather than in the middle of the city where everybody can see them?

If you move them to a camp on the edge of the city, you add a quality to their existence that was not present before, at least as far as the rest of us are concerned. Now in addition to being unsightly they will be invisible. To us.

That invisibility, in fact, then becomes the single most important and powerful aspect of their being as far as the rest of us are concerned. Once they are on the old naval base, you and I will see nothing of them. And now all of sudden those sinister sirens we thought we heard moaning in the distance when this first came up should be sounding ever more clearly in our ears."

Hidden Concentration Camp for Homeless is Bad Idea from the Get-Go | Dallas Observer

Can't rep you again, but you articulated the issues with these 'camps' very well

[majoun]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Can't rep you again, but you articulated the issues with these 'camps' very well

The camps would protect the rest of us from a danger that right now is raging out of control. Some people do need to be isolated from the rest of society, especially if they already profess allegiance to an oppositional violent rejectionist subculture.

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Didn't miss a thing. Among several counterpoints:
1. having a vested interest doesn't guarantee you will have a paycheck in the future from which to make payments.

2. When a buyer is forced to walk away they lose plenty besides any down payment. They lose their credit. They face a variety of costs associated with moving and finding new housing ... especially when their credit is destroyed.

3. “Whatever it takes” was very often not available to huge numbers of people who lost homes where they had made down payments. When a person finds themselves out of work in a recessionary economy they don't just sell more pencils on the street coner each week to come up with $2000 a month mortgage payments.

But correct: not everyone should be a homeowner.

To that I would add: not just anybody should be a mortgage broker or lender either.

Well none of us are guaranteed tomorrow....so.

So they screw up their credit. They get those pre-paid credit cards and before you know it, they're getting regular credit cards again.

Sorry, you lose $30K or more of your money, that stings way more than having bad credit.

Kind of like thinking people who drive around with no car insurance really care if their driver's license gets suspended....they're going to drive regardless.

Originally Posted by majoun

The camps would protect the rest of us from a danger that right now is raging out of control. Some people do need to be isolated from the rest of society, especially if they already profess allegiance to an oppositional violent rejectionist subculture.

Oh really? And who decides who is a danger and who isn't? You?

You better start paying attention, and start wondering what's really going on in this country. You start rounding up people, and where does it end? The elderly, disabled people, etc.

How that work out in Germany, putting people in camps?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by majoun

The camps would protect the rest of us from a danger that right now is raging out of control. Some people do need to be isolated from the rest of society, especially if they already profess allegiance to an oppositional violent rejectionist subculture.

That's priceless...and who decides who is dangerous, you? What about people who are not homeless but have diagnosed mental illness, or the disfigured whose appearance offends you, or maybe people with tattoos, or people who own guns (some of them are demonstrably dangerous).

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by seain dublin

Well none of us are guaranteed tomorrow....so.

So they screw up their credit. They get those pre-paid credit cards and before you know it, they're getting regular credit cards again.

Sorry, you lose $30K or more of your money, that stings way more than having bad credit.

Kind of like thinking people who drive around with no car insurance really care if their driver's license gets suspended....they're going to drive regardless.

Right .. Nothing's guaranteed tomorrow.

But your comment about losing credit status is shallow and cavalier really. There are significant ramifications these days to that .. . Right through to employability and access to insurance. Once your credit is tanked, you don't simly rebuild it with pre-paids, either. That is a total myth. Do you really think the credit agencies and issuers don't discern your position as using pre-paids for a reason? And it takes 7 years to clear your credit hurdles with these guys. Final insult being: if you haven't had prescriptive credit history for 7 years, issuers know why and aren't very accommodating. There's no law requiring them to issue you credit on equitable terms ... so they won't.

It seems you have not experienced these misfortunes. Or you'd know more about this struggle. Lucky you. But you are a bit out of bounds making these particular declarations without experience or knowledge by other association.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

That's priceless...and who decides who is dangerous, you? What about people who are not homeless but have diagnosed mental illness, or the disfigured whose appearance offends you, or maybe people with tattoos, or people who own guns (some of them are demonstrably dangerous).

Apples and oranges.

However I'm sure the CA political class and the Liberty Hill/SJW types would love to intern gun owners or even people with tattoos. Those are groups demonized by the Left

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by seain dublin

Well none of us are guaranteed tomorrow....so.

So they screw up their credit. They get those pre-paid credit cards and before you know it, they're getting regular credit cards again.

Sorry, you lose $30K or more of your money, that stings way more than having bad credit.

Kind of like thinking people who drive around with no car insurance really care if their driver's license gets suspended....they're going to drive regardless.



Oh really? And who decides who is a danger and who isn't? You?

You better start paying attention, and start wondering what's really going on in this country. You start rounding up people, and where does it end? The elderly, disabled people, etc.

How that work out in Germany, putting people in camps?

They don't need to be camps. They can be buildings, eventually. Eventually the housing would be decent, albeit very small and very functional with no luxuries provided. In the same areas, they could provide drug and mental housing services too, likely from trailers. Since it takes time to build even very rudimentary buildings, tents can suffice in the interim. Showers, public toilets and police presence would be provided. Staying there would be voluntary.

This is where the distinctions between the homeless populations would matter. Homelessness is a stupid term since not having a home is not the only issue with these folks, and, in fact, some RV and car owners voluntarily chose homelessness.

The RV/van homeless will not go to the 'camps'. They are content to "live" cheaply in LA. Many work or have an income stream. Most car homeless would likely not go to the housing either, similar to the group above.

The above two groups could be offered temporary housing in the 'camps' but few if any RV/van homeless and probably only a small percentage of car homeless would take the offer.

Mentally disturbed homeless and the people living in tents should otherwise be portable, shouldn't they be? These people almost certainly do not work and almost certainly do not have ties to where they live other than mental ties. They have no right to live on the streets, or on public property.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

They don't need to be camps. They can be buildings, eventually. Eventually the housing would be decent, albeit very small and very functional with no luxuries provided. In the same areas, they could provide drug and mental housing services too, likely from trailers. Since it takes time to build even very rudimentary buildings, tents can suffice in the interim. Showers, public toilets and police presence would be provided. Staying there would be voluntary.

This is where the distinctions between the homeless populations would matter. Homelessness is a stupid term since not having a home is not the only issue with these folks, and, in fact, some RV and car owners voluntarily chose homelessness.

The RV/van homeless will not go to the 'camps'. They are content to "live" cheaply in LA. Many work or have an income stream. Most car homeless would likely not go to the housing either, similar to the group above.

The above two groups could be offered temporary housing in the 'camps' but few if any RV/van homeless and probably only a small percentage of car homeless would take the offer.

Mentally disturbed homeless and the people living in tents should otherwise be portable, shouldn't they be? These people almost certainly do not work and almost certainly do not have ties to where they live other than mental ties. They have no right to live on the streets, or on public property.

The term "houseless" is sometimes used to describe homeless-by-choice, such as many RV and van dwellers, including by those who choose to be homeless themselves, to differentiate them from other homeless people.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

They don't need to be camps. They can be buildings, eventually. Eventually the housing would be decent, albeit very small and very functional with no luxuries provided. In the same areas, they could provide drug and mental housing services too

How is the different than the shelters that already exist? How are you going to get these people to go to these "buildings"? You want them off the street; what happens if they don't stay in the buildings?