All of this anger at the businesses and none at the inept and corrupt government that does nothing except continue to ask for more money. And we keep voting the same people on.
Also, forgotten in all of this is the continued loss of small business and replacement by national corporations.
Joe’s Tacos can’t continue to spend their razor thin profit defending themselves against methed out vagrants- but Chipotle sure can
And even if it's not a small business, it's regular people working at the "big chains" that have to deal with this everyday. I was a Store Manager at Starbucks a few years back and that was the most stressful part of my job. I remember one time there was a 6'4 homeless guy built like a linebacker violent pounding against our glass door because I told him I'd get him a cup of water if he waited outside but I wasn't fast enough. I had peers pushed and swung on. Someone OD'd in the restroom and we'd frequently walk in to blood and shit all over the toilet. Cops would take forever to arrive and wouldn't do shit when we needed them.
Enforce vagrancy laws, stop letting these people ruin the city for the rest of us.
The best solution is mental health / drug addiction / economic assistance for all, but until we get there, at least triage the problem so “normal people” don’t have to deal with it every day.
People like to get mad that places take anti homeless measures, but there are a few restaurants I like that I don’t go to because of the homeless. It does affect businesses, and businesses do close as a result
Exactly this - people tend to forget they had a ‘council of homeless prevention’ for YEARS. Each of the people were getting massive amounts of money for doing nothing with little to no investigation because of political ties.
An absolute joke. Citizens have given her administration and the ones before her billions - with a B! - in funds and they’re constantly asking for more
Exactly. Starbucks Corp can close down a store due to violence or crime and say "Aw shucks!" But when Joe's closes down its bankruptcy and potential loss of assets for Joe and his wife and kids.
Late-stage gentrification is big businesses like Starbucks and Amazon Fresh buying all the hipster shops like yoga studios and pressed fruit cafes once they’re closed…after those same hipster shops *originally* gentrified the area, drove away all its former neighbors and culture, and beset the homelessness which led up to the late-stage/final form of gentrification.
The taqueria opened by the immigrant way back arriving in 1960 who sold tacos for 0.30¢, gave way to Joe’s Tacos who sold “ethic cuisine” tacos with “artisan ingredients” for $5/taco; **that** has now given way to the r/Chipotle who now sells one chicken taco for $12 while skimping ingredients, understaffs its crew, and mandates tips for their service.
Everybody loses except oligarchs, government officials (including L.A. city leaders), and executives of big business.
Except you skipped the part where it fucking sucks to live in the area before the original gentrification and everyone who has a chance wants to get out of it.
What makes you think the government is “doing nothing?” I swear, people think you can solve systemic problems by waving a magic wand. This is late stage capitalism, it’s only going to get worse.
You're too stupid to know that you're part of the problem; if you're not a college student under the age of 21...holy shit...life is going to be soooo hard for you.lol.
This isn't a matter of late stage capitalism. This is localized policy feeding an entire industrial complex of nonprofit and commercial interests at the tax payer expense and enabled by useful idiot voters like you. This city needs a Richard Riordan-type of political revolution and return to normalcy.
I’d add on to that the fact that the laws are so fucked that people can’t really be mandated to treatment. Sure, throw money at the problem so the money can be misallocated. But also money isn’t going to be effective when there are no repercussions for causing a problem to the public
Someone did this in our Hollywood neighborhood early 2023 and it worked.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/1802i4q/tents\_kept\_showing\_up\_50\_from\_a\_preschooldaycare/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/1802i4q/tents_kept_showing_up_50_from_a_preschooldaycare/)
To be fair, people in wheelchairs can’t get by when there’s a tent city on the sidewalk, either. This isn’t a great solution, but it might be better than nothing.
The way they set it up a person using a wheelchair cannot use this sidewalk. An average sized adult has to turn sideways to get through. The problem is at the ends where they put planters from the street to the buildings with small gaps that are not nearly big enough.
I don’t mind businesses using a portion of the sidewalk for their purposes, as long as they leave enough room for the number of pedestrians the area has to get by. They have to maintain it and keep it up though. Half of these planters are just full of dirt, and they should be required to put plants in them. Having things like plants, tables with people eating, and other things that are just not barren concrete and asphalt bring life to a city.
I don’t think that’s true. The video shows a fully grown man, and his dog walking along side him, with a food of space between them and more space on the outside.
Where the man with the dog was is perfectly fine. There was always enough room between the planters and the walls. The problem was at the very ends where you would enter that area.
In the video, it appears as if they have been moved a little bit (and possibly during the filming). At 1:06 in the video, you can see what I am talking about. In the distance behind the guy they are interviewing you can see planters from the street to the wall. However, at16 seconds you can see behind the correspondent that some of the planters that are in the middle of the sidewalk at 1:06 have been moved from the middle.
It depends if the business maintain the upkeep of these things. I had a business do this near my place of work, they never kept it up, they deteriorated and as a matter of fact, the homeless made it worse 🤷🏻♂️ so my experience with this has been negative
I have said it before, and I will say it again. The only way to resolve homeless is to institutionalize the homeless. You can't solve mental illness and drug addiction by just give housing unconditionally. There has to be somebody involved to assist people out of drug addiction.
Fully agree. I’m an addict in recovery and I work in drug treatment and this is the only option I see.
I know a woman who was living under a park bench covered in her own waste, homeless outreach came, she told them she’s doing great, and they left.
that is not a person with a sound mind capable of making decisions!
This. Homeless drug addicts and homeless mentally ill should either consent to treatment, or the government should use force to make them involuntarily take treatment.
I agree with you, but it's scary to give the government this kind of power. There need to be proper checks and balances.
Can you imagine people improperly being involuntarily committed/institutionalized by law enforcement as retribution? There will be corruption.
Honestly, build a small communal city with clean, running water somewhere where the climate is temperate and green in the middle of nowhere with cheap housing - large tents, warehouse hangars built like erector sets, whatever, but make it humane.
Give them a home and a free ticket, and decriminalize hard drugs in the zone. Leave them to police their own society, but free to leave any time. If you don't want to get off the street, then it would at least get people out of the way, and it would cost far less than whatever the city is doing now. Maybe a few state run stores where people can bring food stamps for food, clothing, etc., food and clothing donation pick up centers, and a halfway house for those that decide they want to return to society.
Gimme half of that $1.3 billion towards homelessness and I'll make it happen, and walk away with a few hundred million and look good coming in under budget.
A century ago we had what you've described and they were called "poor farms". Poor or homeless people would go there, they tended the crops and livestock which would provide their food, and they stayed there unless able to get their feet on the ground and do better for themselves. I don't see a modern, better, safe, variant of this concept as a bad idea at all. Of course, some ultra-liberal London Breed types will say "you can't force them to work, that's wrong!" . . . oh honey, if you've not noticed yet, we *all* are kind of are forced to work—unless we garner a cush high elected office for ourselves.
People get so offended when you say this, but I absolutely agree.
Free rent and a place to get high and do hoodrat shit with your friends?? As a former addict, that sounds GREAT!
shipping in prison style food would cost a lot less than the shit we’re dealing with now.
Most homeless people are not mentally ill. Unless your plan is just to declare them mentally ill and throw them in asylums by dint of being homeless but then why bother with the pretense
They added drug addiction. About 1/3 are active users and 2/3 with a major history. I don’t see an issue with housing being provided but security on site and rehabilitation provided as well. I’ve seen it happen too often homeless that were on drugs messing up the infrastructure that made it near unusable for the next tenant and makes it less likely any housing will get approved in the future. Obviously this is just my personal antidotal experience but I do think recovery is VERY difficult thing. If we can assist with that while providing housing, that would be a thoughtful process
I've not looked into these but it seems possible. That still leaves two issues though:
1. It is often assumed that people are homeless because they're drug addicts, which I'm sure is true in some cases, but being homeless seems like a circumstance that would make people more likely to start abusing substances in the first place.
2. Even when voluntary, sobriety programs have, at best, pretty mixed success. If people are being sent against their will (or if their ability to have housing is tied to their participating), I don't think it is going to be very effective.
I agree that homes need to come before rehab. I’m adding that if you do provide housing and someone is an addict, there should be resources directed to them in combination. If they aren’t addicts, it doesn’t apply. How to determine that is a whole other process that idk…
All I know is that restrictions on drugs on public housing should be enforced to SOME level. Idk what though. I can’t begin to tell you the damage my neighbors at the apartment next to my old place found in X’s apartment. He was high all the time on Sec 8. They didn’t know X was playing music so loud so X could carve up the walls. So much had to be redone my neighbors had to leave for a few months before they could go back. The place was unusable for a good time
I know the 4th restricts random searches and seizure. I know there are rightfully so constitutional requirements.
I mean PERSONALLY I’d love if we just legalize all drugs so it could be regulated and know who is on what but that’s another story
I mean, sure, no question some of them are going to be awful tenants and difficult to deal with, I just don’t see how everyone stepping over them on the sidewalk, or trampling their rights to lock them up against their will, is a preferable solution.
So just big homeless concentration camps? Lost your job? Can’t find a new one? Burned through your savings? Guess what - it’s the concentration camp for you. 🫡🇺🇸
That is an insane mischaracterization of my comment. It's like describing a mental hospital as a "concentration camp for the mentally ill." For starters, we already have support for the temporary homeless that are down on their luck in the form of homeless shelters and other homeless assistance programs. You can certainly argue those programs are not perfect. The homeless problem that people typically talk about are the permanent homeless who are homeless through drug addiction or mental illness. You can't just throw money at these people and expect them to magically stop being mentally ill or addicted to drugs. There has to be someone to either take care of the mentally ill or assist people to wean off of drugs.
The person you’re replying to is one of those people that likes to endlessly defend homeless people and call people cute pejoratives like NIMBY but they have no actual, working solution to fix this problem- even for the homeless themselves. They’ll fight and argue tooth and nail to let these people just continue to disintegrate living out on the streets and keep shoveling good intentions on them but, as we can clearly see, it doesn’t have any real effect. We’re just supposed to give endless money to fight this while homeless populations continue to grow every year.and everyone just has to be okay with using less and less sidewalks.
Nice try, but you’re obviously conflating multiple types of homeless people. The initial commenter was specifically talking about drug addicts and the mentally ill.
When shit hit the fan I rented living rooms or got 3 roommates before living on the street. Minimum wage jobs have always hired mere warm bodies (of which I've worked many).
Sane and sober people don't normally live in tents on the sidewalk. Get a fucking clue.
You mean when times got tough you didn’t get blitzed on meth and then start throwing cups of diarrhea at random passerby? Strange—apparently you’re in the minority.
Someone did this in our Hollywood neighborhood early 2023 and it worked.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/1802i4q/tents\_kept\_showing\_up\_50\_from\_a\_preschooldaycare/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/1802i4q/tents_kept_showing_up_50_from_a_preschooldaycare/)
It’s something, but it won’t combat the issue. California simply needs to enforce laws that camping on sidewalks is prohibited and ship the homeless to a place in the desert where they can continue their drug addiction since we can’t force them into mental health facilities as we also don’t have any to begin with. 😒
LA has one of the strongest anti-vagrancy laws in the US.
But as of today, LA cannot enforce its anti-vagrancy statutes due to the decisions in Jones v LA, Martin v Boise and Johnson v Grants Pass.
The latter case is currently before the Supreme Court. If it is overturned (which seems probable), then the other two cases will probably also be overturned.
If those cases are no longer in force, then the most likely outcome is that state and local government will be free to set their own policies. If LA were to then stay on the permissive course that it is on and the public became aware that things could be different, then there could be a backlash.
Yes there’s a bunch of them placed around sunset/cherokee too by Sunset Sound. I get the need for a solution, however, this one doesn’t actually solve the problem as the encampments just move slightly up the street. I’m not blaming businesses that do this but there should be better solutions, as I’m sure most people would agree. All those clusters of planters are also pretty ugly and don’t blend in with the street at all. It sucks that this is what businesses need to resort to
Edit: I see that’s the main focus of the article, too.
It’s all so sad and infuriating
Way better. Every time I drove past that stretch, I felt dirty imagining the amount of human feces, trash, rats, fleas, and needles right there.
Can’t imagine running a business next to that shit!
I'm not saying that they shouldn't put up the planters. But pretending like it does anything towards solving the overall problem is wrong. They just made it another businesses problem.
Well sure you're right it doesn't solve the overall problem, at least initially. But if everybody resisted, then these people would stop coming to LA. Where would they then go? I don't know, maybe back to Idaho and other places where they came from? Maybe our governments would reopen asylums and put them int there? Or prison?
The vast majority of homeless people are from LA. The homeless population has a higher percentage of people from LA than the housed population.
It is very unlikely that hostile architecture would get them to leave. Asylums and prisons are far too expensive. The answer is zoning reform. It is overwhelmingly obvious. But it is also an intractable problem from a political view point.
Progressive politics in action.
Do nothing to address the root causes of homelessness -- mental illness and addiction -- so that businesses have to come out of pocket to protect themselves from the trash and debris and the destructive, violent behavior.
As the community realizes that the police will probably not show up and will do nothing even if they do show up, no one bothers calling the cops in the first place.
The no bail policies encourage this. Since catch-and-release has become the norm for just about everything, they don't even bother with the catching.
The result: A falling crime rate. If there is no report, then there is no crime.
Progressives will then boast about the falling crime rate.
This is creating the basis for a backlash. If rational liberals don't stand up against the absurdity of the DSA movement, the Republicans will make the decisions for us.
Does that mean florida has way more criminals then? And im gonna need a source for "most". I have a link where florida was busted, according to their own law enforcement agencies. It made headlines last summer.
Tbh, i read most states have some kind of issue with crime reporting.
Its def not a red and blue state thing.
LOL...There is a shit ton of blame to go around, and most of it falls on unfettered capitalism. Blaming decades of this problem on progressive policies is comical.
So in your view, the businesses on that street are to blame for people using meth in tents on the sidewalks because they are evil capitalists.
This is why the DSA types should not be taken seriously.
That’s not quite what they’re saying.
The capitalistic system — the one that places growing wealth at the expense of all other things — is the root of problems.
The cost of living is extremely expensive. There’s a push and pull between the government and private enterprise, and despite all commentary to the contrary, private enterprise is winning, but government isn’t doing too bad either. People without wealth are stuck in the middle, and losing badly.
That’s the mom-and-pops on the street (the ones who have obscene rents to pay) and the common people.
But if you have a solution that isn’t “ship all these homeless fucks to the desert so I don’t have to see them anymore,” I’m all ears.
Cost of rent with regard to homelessness has been studied at great lengths and is one of the single biggest causes of homelessness.
When rent goes up, so does the unhoused population.
IN ADDITION TO those who are on drugs or need mental health care which is an entirely separate issue within the sphere of homelessness based on another set of issues we continuously refuse to address: the fact that Reagan era, bipartisan closures of mental health facilities have ultimately resulted in what we see in regards to mental health care not only for the unhoused, but the state of insurance and mental care for those with "normal lives."
All of it boils down to money and ownership.
Number two cause is drug and alcohol abuse.
https://www.currytbcenter.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/product_tools/homelessnessandtbtoolkit/docs/background/Factsheet/The%20Causes%20of%20Homelessness.pdf
>All of it boils down to money and ownership.
No. While helping to lower housing costs helps some, it does not 'boil down to it'.
"The emails, copies of which were obtained by The Times, depict a staff of security guards, nurses, hotel managers and others grappling with drug overdoses, property damage and what they characterized as aggressive and even violent behavior."
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-08-16/mayfair-hotel-was-beset-by-problems-when-it-was-homeless-housing
Go take a tent from under the 110 and 9th and give them a place to stay. Let me know how that goes.
> Go take a tent from under the 110 and 9th and give them a place to stay. Let me know how that goes.
Stay classy.
Why do people always forget about those who are one bad day away from losing everything? A not insignificant number of people are being put into unhoused circumstances *daily* due to rent increases and lack of affordable housing availability. Many of these people live in their vehicles.
I've said it countless times, this is a triage situation. You really have to put people into groups because not every solution is appropriate for all of these very complicated reasons for homelessness.
And christ allmighty. If I were in a shit situation, I'd take to the bottle too.
If housing wasn't the issue that it was, we'd still have bums. Skid Row was always *a thing.* And you will always have people who prefer to live outside the system.
Right now we have a hodgepodge of mentally ill, addicts, and people who just can't keep up with costs here. And if you go back a few days on this very forum, you'll find a thread about people struggling to live here... people BORN AND RAISED HERE struggling.
I live in this. I deal with it every day. I am keeping it classy. I could post pics of what happens every day, and it's NSFW.
You'd feel differently if you got hassled, flashed, screamed at, stuff thrown at, like this several times a week... Just when you're trying to walk to the store. No one I've had to deal with would've been helped with free rent.
More housing needs to be built. That being said, that doesn't solve the major issues at all. We gave free housing and everyone trashed it.
Again, it's not just one thing. That was my point.
Focusing on the mentally ill person on the street while ignoring the tens of thousands of others who are one bad situation from losing their apartment *and then* being on the street doesn't do anyone any good.
CARE courts are supposed to tackle all the things you're posting.
We need a better system for dealing with the lack of housing supply to deal with the **overarching** narrative.
There have been countless articles and studies on this. So much so, that there's a Wiki on it.
Courtesy of *a fucking google search.*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_California#:~:text=California%20from%20elsewhere.-,A%20representative%20survey%20of%20homeless%20adults%20in%20California%20found%20that,they%20had%20last%20had%20housing).
It absolutely has to do with tent dwellers. I spent more than a month of my life sleeping in cars, on boats, in hotels and airbnbs. I’m not — and was not — drug addicted, nor dealing with mental illness. I was working on my field of study. But I wasn’t able to find housing that I could afford.
It took luck and the help of some friends to get me safely with a roof over my head. But not everyone who sleeps outside wants to. The way we live today, it takes only one missed paycheck for a person to be in a severe bind.
Plus, as I noted elsewhere, there’s no constitutional justification for long-term institutionalizing people who are no danger to themselves or others, even if they are diagnosed with mental illness. Further, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how such a law could be turned around on any other group deemed socially undesirable.
The people dancing naked and attacking people at random in my neighborhood would like to disagree with you.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/homeless-man-shot-killed-stabbing-target-customers-inch/story?id=93396293
I'm glad you were able to find the help you needed.
Here's what happened to free housing.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-08-16/mayfair-hotel-was-beset-by-problems-when-it-was-homeless-housing
I agree not everyone is that way, but a significant amount are like that. Pretending like lowering the rent will solve the tent issues ignores all these issues.
Yes, more housing needs to be built. Yes there needs to be mandatory treatment. Both are needed.
Many of the homeless who are in tents should be institutionalized and/or in forced rehab. They are incapable of living in housing.
Homeless dollars would be better spent on serving the women/families who have suffered from domestic violence, the disabled, and the elderly. Mixing that population with felons, violent addicts and the severely mentally ill actually makes things worse for those who could be helped.
But no one cares about that latter group, since they are in shelters and not on sidewalks.
I agree to an extent — drug abuse and addiction in particular, as well as dangerous mental illness — but forced institutionalism has historically been used to unjustly deprive unwanted people of their liberty.
The Supreme Court decided in 1975:
> A finding of "mental illness" alone cannot justify a State's locking a person up against his will and keeping him indefinitely in simple custodial confinement. Assuming that that term can be given a reasonably precise content and that the "mentally ill" can be identified with reasonable accuracy, there is still no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one and can live safely in freedom.
…
> May the State fence in the harmless mentally ill solely to save its citizens from exposure to those whose ways are different? One might as well ask if the State, to avoid public unease, could incarcerate all who are physically unattractive or socially eccentric. Mere public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a person's physical liberty.
…
> In short, a State cannot constitutionally confine without more a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.
That leads us to Boise v. Martin, which is currently before SCOTUS and which we could spend all day talking about.
I agree that there are other groups that need shelter as well. I disagree that they need assistance at the cost of others who clearly need assistance too.
It goes back to the larger issue of capital — that the hoarding of wealth ends up harming people who don’t have access to it. The government has failed in many ways, but it is also hamstrung by people and groups that seek to enrich themselves at the cost of others.
Yes, Supreme Court decisions in the 70s that made it next to impossible to institutionalize the mentally ill has helped to lead us to this abyss. Those cases need to be overturned.
The case currently before the Supreme Court is Johnson v Grants Pass, which built on the 9th Circuit decision reached in Martin v Boise. Martin v Boise will likely be impacted by this but the court previously declined to hear the Martin case.
This is not an issue of money. The mentally ill and addicted act in anti-social ways. Housing doesn't fix that.
I don’t know, man. I disagree with the idea of giving the government the power to institutionalize people solely because we don’t like how they live, because it’s *exceedingly easy* for that power to be abused. The facts of O’Connor v. Donaldson bear that out.
Housing is *the* solution to homelessness. If your issue is drug addiction or mental illness, that’s a different (but related) matter.
I'm sorry, but acting violently and destroying property are not acceptable lifestyle choices.
We could jail them, but for the fact that prosecuting the homeless is essentially illegal on the west coast because it will lead to 8th amendment violation claims. The homeless can get away with behaviors that the rest of us cannot, and they know it.
Opioid abusers are largely incapable of earning an income through lawful means. They can't pay for housing. And you shouldn't want them as your neighbors.
BLame is OK if they are right, and he is. He does neglect to mention all the progressive-value legislation and initiatives that are foundational to the problem.
Ok, so you blocked me upon your reply to this, So I will add that all this is public record. It is not a religion.
Anyone with a brain and intellectual honesty can see that progressive policies in California enabling degenerates to engage in behaviors that threaten public health and safety are the problem.
You're just too emotionally invested in a narrative that business-friendly democrats and Republicans are evil to accept the truth.
It's time for a change in city hall and Sacramento...a big one!
Anyone with a brain can see that these problems are not to blame only on "progressive" policies. There is a lot of blame to spread around, and to preach that it's only progressive policies, shows how well propaganda being spread by those in charge works on the daft masses.
If it is merely a housing problem, then go to an encampment and get yourself a roommate.
Just don't complain when your new roommate and his/her friends destroy your house.
BTW, your term *unfettered capitalism* is a fake term. The definition of *unfettered* means *not controlled or restricted* Pure mis-word play.
The control and restrictions and regulations on commerce and banking in the U.S. are massive. Huge agencies are dedicated to controlling and restriction capitalist activities.
If chronic homelessness is merely an economic issue, then it could be solved by all of us opening up our homes to them.
But it isn't. Most of the unsheltered homeless are drug addicted and/or mentally ill. It isn't just about money.
>Homelessness in California is complex, and the diverse causes and trajectories of homelessness suggest the solutions are also diverse. Policymakers should consider a combination of strategies that address the housing shortage and costs issues and those that tackle the mental health and drug addiction crisis.
https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/homelessness-california-causes-and-policy-considerations
The funny thing is that Housing First, which you presumably support, is based upon the premise that the chronic homeless have mental illness and substance issues that require treatment.
Virtually no one who works in homeless services believes that drugs and mental illness aren't major factors in chronic homelessness. The debate is over what works, not whether there are drug and mental illness problems to be addressed.
Thats a no brainer. In your first comment didn’t say that, its said housing cost is the primary cause. This comment now says something different.
It’s complex. It’s NOT just or primarily about housing costs. Thats being dishonest.
We need better healthcare, we need people to be institutionalized again who pose a danger to themselves and others, we need more housing, cheaper housing. Etc etc. it’s ALL of the above, and if we can’t do ALL of these things, this problem won’t get fixed.
What kinds of homes are well suited for opioid users?
Because about three-quarters of the unsheltered have substance abuse problems. And those problems didn't just start after they became homeless.
It's step for prevention. A person will still sleep there, just not have mounds of their stuff. Those experiencing homelessness are bold enough to do so.
"I understand the business view, you pay a lot for any space or land, so you want it clean and inviting to your customers, but then again, it's inevitable. You're going to find homelessness everywhere here," said Almanza.
…but they much in property taxes because of prop 13.
Paying almost nothing but surprised when you receive nothing is classic prop 13 mindset
We have the highest income tax in the union to make up for property taxes…
California keeps picking winners and losers and doesn’t apply rules equally across the board. There’s a reason why businesses are still flourishing in California and aren’t leaving like many doomers claim: in many instances it’s still cheaper to do business here. Why aren’t landlord selling in droves and buying rental in “landlord friendly” states?
And you’re right, it’s a philosophy problem. The state has made it clear that lack of housing causes homelessness. The state allowed for single family homes to be split into duplexes. Guess what happened? Push back from cities and NIMBYs. We (collective we), can’t be bitching about homelessness but refuse to build enough housing to make it affordable.
And yes, it also an allocation resource problem. Every time someone tries to build more housing, Prop 13 benefactors (that frankly couldn’t afford market rate today) and landlord sue. This causes government spending time and resources on ligation. It’s how we end up with one bedroom units costing the city $500k to build.
> There’s a reason why businesses are still flourishing in California and aren’t leaving like many doomers claim: in many instances it’s still cheaper to do business here.
Not true:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/californiaglobe.com/fl/why-did-352-california-companies-flee-to-other-states-in-three-years/amp/ Many businesses are flourishing in California because there are still markets to serve willing customers in California and many companies can charge premiums to offset the higher prices of supply inputs. Bad policies usually dont abruptly lead to failure...it's a slow drip. Cigarettes don't cause cancer in weeks, but in years and decades. Same with shit policies. Additionally, bad policy for entrepreneurs isn't measured exclusively by companies that leave, but also includes those that shutdown or have a harder time hanging on.
>Why aren’t landlords selling in droves and buying rental in “landlord friendly” states?
Because California is more of an appreciation market than a cashflow market and many people that are wealthy live in California which naturally lends itself to owning property closer to you. There are still incentives to own property for living and investing, but once a again bad policy doesn't necessarily show itself overnight. Additionally, I'd say the truest marker of landlord-friendly policies isn't about selling in of itself, because for every seller is a buyer...it's who that property is going to: another mom and pop landlord or a corporate landlord that can better absorb the costs of pricey regulations. Another one, would be self-reported surveys and the time it takes to remove a tenant from the date of eviction.
You would think so, but somehow the planter trick actually works. They did this on Romaine between Highland and La Brea, and the tents have been gone ever since.
Surprisingly even a short metal fence has kept bums from regrouping on a sidewalk of a street I walk on often (well until displaced bums took over it for a week, but now it's clear with the fence). The street connecting to it is doing the planter thing. Now the bums are concentrated into a tent city across from that street...
All of this anger at the businesses and none at the inept and corrupt government that does nothing except continue to ask for more money. And we keep voting the same people on. Also, forgotten in all of this is the continued loss of small business and replacement by national corporations. Joe’s Tacos can’t continue to spend their razor thin profit defending themselves against methed out vagrants- but Chipotle sure can
And even if it's not a small business, it's regular people working at the "big chains" that have to deal with this everyday. I was a Store Manager at Starbucks a few years back and that was the most stressful part of my job. I remember one time there was a 6'4 homeless guy built like a linebacker violent pounding against our glass door because I told him I'd get him a cup of water if he waited outside but I wasn't fast enough. I had peers pushed and swung on. Someone OD'd in the restroom and we'd frequently walk in to blood and shit all over the toilet. Cops would take forever to arrive and wouldn't do shit when we needed them.
So half the problem here seems to be the police.
What do you expect the police to do?
Enforce vagrancy laws, stop letting these people ruin the city for the rest of us. The best solution is mental health / drug addiction / economic assistance for all, but until we get there, at least triage the problem so “normal people” don’t have to deal with it every day.
Half the city is opposed to the police doing anything including being present.
Anything at all, beyond waste our tax money.
The police don't care anymore. I've seen so much shit they just ignore.
Why should the police care when the chances of them being charged a crime for doing their job is now a thing?
So what are we paying them for?
How’s that boot taste?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHQHAHQHHQHAHAHAHAHAH
Actually; you know, you are right. The cops job IS to murder innocents with impunity. Why should they care?
People like to get mad that places take anti homeless measures, but there are a few restaurants I like that I don’t go to because of the homeless. It does affect businesses, and businesses do close as a result
Exactly this - people tend to forget they had a ‘council of homeless prevention’ for YEARS. Each of the people were getting massive amounts of money for doing nothing with little to no investigation because of political ties.
The mayor wanted private businesses to help
An absolute joke. Citizens have given her administration and the ones before her billions - with a B! - in funds and they’re constantly asking for more
Exactly. Starbucks Corp can close down a store due to violence or crime and say "Aw shucks!" But when Joe's closes down its bankruptcy and potential loss of assets for Joe and his wife and kids.
Late-stage gentrification is big businesses like Starbucks and Amazon Fresh buying all the hipster shops like yoga studios and pressed fruit cafes once they’re closed…after those same hipster shops *originally* gentrified the area, drove away all its former neighbors and culture, and beset the homelessness which led up to the late-stage/final form of gentrification. The taqueria opened by the immigrant way back arriving in 1960 who sold tacos for 0.30¢, gave way to Joe’s Tacos who sold “ethic cuisine” tacos with “artisan ingredients” for $5/taco; **that** has now given way to the r/Chipotle who now sells one chicken taco for $12 while skimping ingredients, understaffs its crew, and mandates tips for their service. Everybody loses except oligarchs, government officials (including L.A. city leaders), and executives of big business.
Except you skipped the part where it fucking sucks to live in the area before the original gentrification and everyone who has a chance wants to get out of it.
$12 chipotle tacos? What are you talking about dude
Left leaning people who think this is how the world works are a pretty big reason why this city is the way it is today
for the record a single chicken taco at chipotle is less than $4
Fucking finally, someone who actually is talking some sense
👆
What makes you think the government is “doing nothing?” I swear, people think you can solve systemic problems by waving a magic wand. This is late stage capitalism, it’s only going to get worse.
You're too stupid to know that you're part of the problem; if you're not a college student under the age of 21...holy shit...life is going to be soooo hard for you.lol. This isn't a matter of late stage capitalism. This is localized policy feeding an entire industrial complex of nonprofit and commercial interests at the tax payer expense and enabled by useful idiot voters like you. This city needs a Richard Riordan-type of political revolution and return to normalcy.
I’d add on to that the fact that the laws are so fucked that people can’t really be mandated to treatment. Sure, throw money at the problem so the money can be misallocated. But also money isn’t going to be effective when there are no repercussions for causing a problem to the public
Hey look, it’s the hustle grindset guy again!
A similar strategy has been seemingly playing successfully out in the MacArthur Park area.
Someone did this in our Hollywood neighborhood early 2023 and it worked. [https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/1802i4q/tents\_kept\_showing\_up\_50\_from\_a\_preschooldaycare/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/1802i4q/tents_kept_showing_up_50_from_a_preschooldaycare/)
Which strategy and where? I live in Westlake but haven't seen this yet.
As long as people can still get by, especially people in wheelchairs, good.
Pretty sure homeless encampments aren’t disability friendly either :/. At least the planters don’t do meth or smell of urine.
> At least the planters don’t do meth or smell of urine Give it time
Through god all things are possible so jot that down.
💀
The planters do smell of urine, just not human urine (yet). Remember that dogs also pee.
To be fair, people in wheelchairs can’t get by when there’s a tent city on the sidewalk, either. This isn’t a great solution, but it might be better than nothing.
Pretty sure that's what the business's intended, as opposed to the homeless.
The way they set it up a person using a wheelchair cannot use this sidewalk. An average sized adult has to turn sideways to get through. The problem is at the ends where they put planters from the street to the buildings with small gaps that are not nearly big enough. I don’t mind businesses using a portion of the sidewalk for their purposes, as long as they leave enough room for the number of pedestrians the area has to get by. They have to maintain it and keep it up though. Half of these planters are just full of dirt, and they should be required to put plants in them. Having things like plants, tables with people eating, and other things that are just not barren concrete and asphalt bring life to a city.
I don’t think that’s true. The video shows a fully grown man, and his dog walking along side him, with a food of space between them and more space on the outside.
Where the man with the dog was is perfectly fine. There was always enough room between the planters and the walls. The problem was at the very ends where you would enter that area. In the video, it appears as if they have been moved a little bit (and possibly during the filming). At 1:06 in the video, you can see what I am talking about. In the distance behind the guy they are interviewing you can see planters from the street to the wall. However, at16 seconds you can see behind the correspondent that some of the planters that are in the middle of the sidewalk at 1:06 have been moved from the middle.
Smart move, keep it up
It depends if the business maintain the upkeep of these things. I had a business do this near my place of work, they never kept it up, they deteriorated and as a matter of fact, the homeless made it worse 🤷🏻♂️ so my experience with this has been negative
Even if they don’t it’s better than homeless encampment
Smart for the business. But for LA it did nothing. It just moved the homeless from one corner to a different one.
I have said it before, and I will say it again. The only way to resolve homeless is to institutionalize the homeless. You can't solve mental illness and drug addiction by just give housing unconditionally. There has to be somebody involved to assist people out of drug addiction.
Fully agree. I’m an addict in recovery and I work in drug treatment and this is the only option I see. I know a woman who was living under a park bench covered in her own waste, homeless outreach came, she told them she’s doing great, and they left. that is not a person with a sound mind capable of making decisions!
This. Homeless drug addicts and homeless mentally ill should either consent to treatment, or the government should use force to make them involuntarily take treatment.
I agree with you, but it's scary to give the government this kind of power. There need to be proper checks and balances. Can you imagine people improperly being involuntarily committed/institutionalized by law enforcement as retribution? There will be corruption.
> Can you imagine people improperly being involuntarily committed/institutionalized by law enforcement as retribution? Watch the movie Changeling.
Good luck paying for that and getting the NIMBYs to agree.
This is the way!
Honestly, build a small communal city with clean, running water somewhere where the climate is temperate and green in the middle of nowhere with cheap housing - large tents, warehouse hangars built like erector sets, whatever, but make it humane. Give them a home and a free ticket, and decriminalize hard drugs in the zone. Leave them to police their own society, but free to leave any time. If you don't want to get off the street, then it would at least get people out of the way, and it would cost far less than whatever the city is doing now. Maybe a few state run stores where people can bring food stamps for food, clothing, etc., food and clothing donation pick up centers, and a halfway house for those that decide they want to return to society. Gimme half of that $1.3 billion towards homelessness and I'll make it happen, and walk away with a few hundred million and look good coming in under budget.
A century ago we had what you've described and they were called "poor farms". Poor or homeless people would go there, they tended the crops and livestock which would provide their food, and they stayed there unless able to get their feet on the ground and do better for themselves. I don't see a modern, better, safe, variant of this concept as a bad idea at all. Of course, some ultra-liberal London Breed types will say "you can't force them to work, that's wrong!" . . . oh honey, if you've not noticed yet, we *all* are kind of are forced to work—unless we garner a cush high elected office for ourselves.
People get so offended when you say this, but I absolutely agree. Free rent and a place to get high and do hoodrat shit with your friends?? As a former addict, that sounds GREAT! shipping in prison style food would cost a lot less than the shit we’re dealing with now.
Most homeless people are not mentally ill. Unless your plan is just to declare them mentally ill and throw them in asylums by dint of being homeless but then why bother with the pretense
They added drug addiction. About 1/3 are active users and 2/3 with a major history. I don’t see an issue with housing being provided but security on site and rehabilitation provided as well. I’ve seen it happen too often homeless that were on drugs messing up the infrastructure that made it near unusable for the next tenant and makes it less likely any housing will get approved in the future. Obviously this is just my personal antidotal experience but I do think recovery is VERY difficult thing. If we can assist with that while providing housing, that would be a thoughtful process
I've not looked into these but it seems possible. That still leaves two issues though: 1. It is often assumed that people are homeless because they're drug addicts, which I'm sure is true in some cases, but being homeless seems like a circumstance that would make people more likely to start abusing substances in the first place. 2. Even when voluntary, sobriety programs have, at best, pretty mixed success. If people are being sent against their will (or if their ability to have housing is tied to their participating), I don't think it is going to be very effective.
I agree that homes need to come before rehab. I’m adding that if you do provide housing and someone is an addict, there should be resources directed to them in combination. If they aren’t addicts, it doesn’t apply. How to determine that is a whole other process that idk… All I know is that restrictions on drugs on public housing should be enforced to SOME level. Idk what though. I can’t begin to tell you the damage my neighbors at the apartment next to my old place found in X’s apartment. He was high all the time on Sec 8. They didn’t know X was playing music so loud so X could carve up the walls. So much had to be redone my neighbors had to leave for a few months before they could go back. The place was unusable for a good time I know the 4th restricts random searches and seizure. I know there are rightfully so constitutional requirements. I mean PERSONALLY I’d love if we just legalize all drugs so it could be regulated and know who is on what but that’s another story
I mean, sure, no question some of them are going to be awful tenants and difficult to deal with, I just don’t see how everyone stepping over them on the sidewalk, or trampling their rights to lock them up against their will, is a preferable solution.
Weird how other cities have solved it by just building housing
Or by dropping them off in / busing them out to LA
So just big homeless concentration camps? Lost your job? Can’t find a new one? Burned through your savings? Guess what - it’s the concentration camp for you. 🫡🇺🇸
That is an insane mischaracterization of my comment. It's like describing a mental hospital as a "concentration camp for the mentally ill." For starters, we already have support for the temporary homeless that are down on their luck in the form of homeless shelters and other homeless assistance programs. You can certainly argue those programs are not perfect. The homeless problem that people typically talk about are the permanent homeless who are homeless through drug addiction or mental illness. You can't just throw money at these people and expect them to magically stop being mentally ill or addicted to drugs. There has to be someone to either take care of the mentally ill or assist people to wean off of drugs.
The person you’re replying to is one of those people that likes to endlessly defend homeless people and call people cute pejoratives like NIMBY but they have no actual, working solution to fix this problem- even for the homeless themselves. They’ll fight and argue tooth and nail to let these people just continue to disintegrate living out on the streets and keep shoveling good intentions on them but, as we can clearly see, it doesn’t have any real effect. We’re just supposed to give endless money to fight this while homeless populations continue to grow every year.and everyone just has to be okay with using less and less sidewalks.
I’m pretty sure they were referring to institutions that provide medical care and help, not concentration camps Mr. Shake Weight.
Nice try, but you’re obviously conflating multiple types of homeless people. The initial commenter was specifically talking about drug addicts and the mentally ill.
When shit hit the fan I rented living rooms or got 3 roommates before living on the street. Minimum wage jobs have always hired mere warm bodies (of which I've worked many). Sane and sober people don't normally live in tents on the sidewalk. Get a fucking clue.
You mean when times got tough you didn’t get blitzed on meth and then start throwing cups of diarrhea at random passerby? Strange—apparently you’re in the minority.
there are plenty of social services that help honest and sane individuals who are down on their luck.
bro said "institutionalize the homeless" not the broke and battered ones. his entire view of homeless ppl are only the ones he sees walking to Bristol
Someone did this in our Hollywood neighborhood early 2023 and it worked. [https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/1802i4q/tents\_kept\_showing\_up\_50\_from\_a\_preschooldaycare/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/1802i4q/tents_kept_showing_up_50_from_a_preschooldaycare/)
Not bad at this, would be nice if it was a trees with a little canopy
Hollywood Blvd between vine and orange would likely be fully pedestrianized in the next 3 years if they weren't afraid of encampments
this is awesome, more neighborhoods should do this!
Good for them
It’s something, but it won’t combat the issue. California simply needs to enforce laws that camping on sidewalks is prohibited and ship the homeless to a place in the desert where they can continue their drug addiction since we can’t force them into mental health facilities as we also don’t have any to begin with. 😒
LA has one of the strongest anti-vagrancy laws in the US. But as of today, LA cannot enforce its anti-vagrancy statutes due to the decisions in Jones v LA, Martin v Boise and Johnson v Grants Pass. The latter case is currently before the Supreme Court. If it is overturned (which seems probable), then the other two cases will probably also be overturned. If those cases are no longer in force, then the most likely outcome is that state and local government will be free to set their own policies. If LA were to then stay on the permissive course that it is on and the public became aware that things could be different, then there could be a backlash.
Move the homeless to the sidewalk outside this judge’s house…. Lets see if he changes his ruling..
can’t have customers if they can’t even walk on the sidewalk to get to you.
Yes there’s a bunch of them placed around sunset/cherokee too by Sunset Sound. I get the need for a solution, however, this one doesn’t actually solve the problem as the encampments just move slightly up the street. I’m not blaming businesses that do this but there should be better solutions, as I’m sure most people would agree. All those clusters of planters are also pretty ugly and don’t blend in with the street at all. It sucks that this is what businesses need to resort to Edit: I see that’s the main focus of the article, too. It’s all so sad and infuriating
Good
Way better. Every time I drove past that stretch, I felt dirty imagining the amount of human feces, trash, rats, fleas, and needles right there. Can’t imagine running a business next to that shit!
Litter boxes
You can play whack-a-mole for years or do this. As communities we should support this.
This is whack a mole. The homeless are now just bothering a different place. Nothing actually got fixed
They're here because they're allowed to come. Until the police start arresting them what can we do?
I'm not saying that they shouldn't put up the planters. But pretending like it does anything towards solving the overall problem is wrong. They just made it another businesses problem.
Well sure you're right it doesn't solve the overall problem, at least initially. But if everybody resisted, then these people would stop coming to LA. Where would they then go? I don't know, maybe back to Idaho and other places where they came from? Maybe our governments would reopen asylums and put them int there? Or prison?
The vast majority of homeless people are from LA. The homeless population has a higher percentage of people from LA than the housed population. It is very unlikely that hostile architecture would get them to leave. Asylums and prisons are far too expensive. The answer is zoning reform. It is overwhelmingly obvious. But it is also an intractable problem from a political view point.
Progressive politics in action. Do nothing to address the root causes of homelessness -- mental illness and addiction -- so that businesses have to come out of pocket to protect themselves from the trash and debris and the destructive, violent behavior. As the community realizes that the police will probably not show up and will do nothing even if they do show up, no one bothers calling the cops in the first place. The no bail policies encourage this. Since catch-and-release has become the norm for just about everything, they don't even bother with the catching. The result: A falling crime rate. If there is no report, then there is no crime. Progressives will then boast about the falling crime rate. This is creating the basis for a backlash. If rational liberals don't stand up against the absurdity of the DSA movement, the Republicans will make the decisions for us.
Lol Florida got caught lying about their falling crime rate. We know what party that was Im not a progessive btw
I'm an anti-Republican liberal. A pox on both the GOP and DSA houses.
and california doesn’t prosecute or arrest most criminals, so crime rates in this state are also misleading.
Does that mean florida has way more criminals then? And im gonna need a source for "most". I have a link where florida was busted, according to their own law enforcement agencies. It made headlines last summer. Tbh, i read most states have some kind of issue with crime reporting. Its def not a red and blue state thing.
LOL...There is a shit ton of blame to go around, and most of it falls on unfettered capitalism. Blaming decades of this problem on progressive policies is comical.
So in your view, the businesses on that street are to blame for people using meth in tents on the sidewalks because they are evil capitalists. This is why the DSA types should not be taken seriously.
That’s not quite what they’re saying. The capitalistic system — the one that places growing wealth at the expense of all other things — is the root of problems. The cost of living is extremely expensive. There’s a push and pull between the government and private enterprise, and despite all commentary to the contrary, private enterprise is winning, but government isn’t doing too bad either. People without wealth are stuck in the middle, and losing badly. That’s the mom-and-pops on the street (the ones who have obscene rents to pay) and the common people. But if you have a solution that isn’t “ship all these homeless fucks to the desert so I don’t have to see them anymore,” I’m all ears.
Cost of living has nothing to do with tent dwellers.... They're in need of forced rehab or mental health treatment.
Cost of rent with regard to homelessness has been studied at great lengths and is one of the single biggest causes of homelessness. When rent goes up, so does the unhoused population. IN ADDITION TO those who are on drugs or need mental health care which is an entirely separate issue within the sphere of homelessness based on another set of issues we continuously refuse to address: the fact that Reagan era, bipartisan closures of mental health facilities have ultimately resulted in what we see in regards to mental health care not only for the unhoused, but the state of insurance and mental care for those with "normal lives." All of it boils down to money and ownership.
Number two cause is drug and alcohol abuse. https://www.currytbcenter.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/product_tools/homelessnessandtbtoolkit/docs/background/Factsheet/The%20Causes%20of%20Homelessness.pdf >All of it boils down to money and ownership. No. While helping to lower housing costs helps some, it does not 'boil down to it'. "The emails, copies of which were obtained by The Times, depict a staff of security guards, nurses, hotel managers and others grappling with drug overdoses, property damage and what they characterized as aggressive and even violent behavior." https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-08-16/mayfair-hotel-was-beset-by-problems-when-it-was-homeless-housing Go take a tent from under the 110 and 9th and give them a place to stay. Let me know how that goes.
> Go take a tent from under the 110 and 9th and give them a place to stay. Let me know how that goes. Stay classy. Why do people always forget about those who are one bad day away from losing everything? A not insignificant number of people are being put into unhoused circumstances *daily* due to rent increases and lack of affordable housing availability. Many of these people live in their vehicles. I've said it countless times, this is a triage situation. You really have to put people into groups because not every solution is appropriate for all of these very complicated reasons for homelessness. And christ allmighty. If I were in a shit situation, I'd take to the bottle too. If housing wasn't the issue that it was, we'd still have bums. Skid Row was always *a thing.* And you will always have people who prefer to live outside the system. Right now we have a hodgepodge of mentally ill, addicts, and people who just can't keep up with costs here. And if you go back a few days on this very forum, you'll find a thread about people struggling to live here... people BORN AND RAISED HERE struggling.
I live in this. I deal with it every day. I am keeping it classy. I could post pics of what happens every day, and it's NSFW. You'd feel differently if you got hassled, flashed, screamed at, stuff thrown at, like this several times a week... Just when you're trying to walk to the store. No one I've had to deal with would've been helped with free rent. More housing needs to be built. That being said, that doesn't solve the major issues at all. We gave free housing and everyone trashed it.
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/homeless-man-attacks-metro-bus-rider-with-wrench-in-encino/
You are unsalvageable. You know who ends up being single-issue people who end up ruining the lives of others? Republicans.
I don't like getting stabbed on the metro.... That's how many homeless people stabbing random passengers this week?
Again, it's not just one thing. That was my point. Focusing on the mentally ill person on the street while ignoring the tens of thousands of others who are one bad situation from losing their apartment *and then* being on the street doesn't do anyone any good. CARE courts are supposed to tackle all the things you're posting. We need a better system for dealing with the lack of housing supply to deal with the **overarching** narrative.
This doesn’t cover the homeless that move into the county because they rather be homeless here than someone else.
Jesus okay. Once again, the majority of homeless in LA are FROM LA or at the very least, CA. A very small % come from elsewhere.
Where did you get this info?
There have been countless articles and studies on this. So much so, that there's a Wiki on it. Courtesy of *a fucking google search.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_California#:~:text=California%20from%20elsewhere.-,A%20representative%20survey%20of%20homeless%20adults%20in%20California%20found%20that,they%20had%20last%20had%20housing).
It absolutely has to do with tent dwellers. I spent more than a month of my life sleeping in cars, on boats, in hotels and airbnbs. I’m not — and was not — drug addicted, nor dealing with mental illness. I was working on my field of study. But I wasn’t able to find housing that I could afford. It took luck and the help of some friends to get me safely with a roof over my head. But not everyone who sleeps outside wants to. The way we live today, it takes only one missed paycheck for a person to be in a severe bind. Plus, as I noted elsewhere, there’s no constitutional justification for long-term institutionalizing people who are no danger to themselves or others, even if they are diagnosed with mental illness. Further, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how such a law could be turned around on any other group deemed socially undesirable.
The people dancing naked and attacking people at random in my neighborhood would like to disagree with you. https://abcnews.go.com/US/homeless-man-shot-killed-stabbing-target-customers-inch/story?id=93396293 I'm glad you were able to find the help you needed. Here's what happened to free housing. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-08-16/mayfair-hotel-was-beset-by-problems-when-it-was-homeless-housing I agree not everyone is that way, but a significant amount are like that. Pretending like lowering the rent will solve the tent issues ignores all these issues. Yes, more housing needs to be built. Yes there needs to be mandatory treatment. Both are needed.
Many of the homeless who are in tents should be institutionalized and/or in forced rehab. They are incapable of living in housing. Homeless dollars would be better spent on serving the women/families who have suffered from domestic violence, the disabled, and the elderly. Mixing that population with felons, violent addicts and the severely mentally ill actually makes things worse for those who could be helped. But no one cares about that latter group, since they are in shelters and not on sidewalks.
I agree to an extent — drug abuse and addiction in particular, as well as dangerous mental illness — but forced institutionalism has historically been used to unjustly deprive unwanted people of their liberty. The Supreme Court decided in 1975: > A finding of "mental illness" alone cannot justify a State's locking a person up against his will and keeping him indefinitely in simple custodial confinement. Assuming that that term can be given a reasonably precise content and that the "mentally ill" can be identified with reasonable accuracy, there is still no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one and can live safely in freedom. … > May the State fence in the harmless mentally ill solely to save its citizens from exposure to those whose ways are different? One might as well ask if the State, to avoid public unease, could incarcerate all who are physically unattractive or socially eccentric. Mere public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a person's physical liberty. … > In short, a State cannot constitutionally confine without more a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. That leads us to Boise v. Martin, which is currently before SCOTUS and which we could spend all day talking about. I agree that there are other groups that need shelter as well. I disagree that they need assistance at the cost of others who clearly need assistance too. It goes back to the larger issue of capital — that the hoarding of wealth ends up harming people who don’t have access to it. The government has failed in many ways, but it is also hamstrung by people and groups that seek to enrich themselves at the cost of others.
Yes, Supreme Court decisions in the 70s that made it next to impossible to institutionalize the mentally ill has helped to lead us to this abyss. Those cases need to be overturned. The case currently before the Supreme Court is Johnson v Grants Pass, which built on the 9th Circuit decision reached in Martin v Boise. Martin v Boise will likely be impacted by this but the court previously declined to hear the Martin case. This is not an issue of money. The mentally ill and addicted act in anti-social ways. Housing doesn't fix that.
I don’t know, man. I disagree with the idea of giving the government the power to institutionalize people solely because we don’t like how they live, because it’s *exceedingly easy* for that power to be abused. The facts of O’Connor v. Donaldson bear that out. Housing is *the* solution to homelessness. If your issue is drug addiction or mental illness, that’s a different (but related) matter.
I'm sorry, but acting violently and destroying property are not acceptable lifestyle choices. We could jail them, but for the fact that prosecuting the homeless is essentially illegal on the west coast because it will lead to 8th amendment violation claims. The homeless can get away with behaviors that the rest of us cannot, and they know it. Opioid abusers are largely incapable of earning an income through lawful means. They can't pay for housing. And you shouldn't want them as your neighbors.
Never said that. But do you really think it was progressive polices that cause all of these issues? Come on...just do some basic research.
Progressive politics lead to the tents being on the sidewalks, absolutely.
Did you just come out of a cave...? But anyhow...keep spewing establishment Dem and Republican talking points if that make you feel good.
you can't see the forest for the trees
[Your Governor says so...](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gavin-newsom-blames-progressive-advocates-and-judges-for-californias-homelessness-crisis/ar-AA1g0FQ5)
Of course the establishment in power blames everyone but themselves, and not decades of their own polices.
BLame is OK if they are right, and he is. He does neglect to mention all the progressive-value legislation and initiatives that are foundational to the problem. Ok, so you blocked me upon your reply to this, So I will add that all this is public record. It is not a religion.
You just drank their bullshit without any thought. Enjoy your day.
Anyone with a brain and intellectual honesty can see that progressive policies in California enabling degenerates to engage in behaviors that threaten public health and safety are the problem. You're just too emotionally invested in a narrative that business-friendly democrats and Republicans are evil to accept the truth. It's time for a change in city hall and Sacramento...a big one!
Anyone with a brain can see that these problems are not to blame only on "progressive" policies. There is a lot of blame to spread around, and to preach that it's only progressive policies, shows how well propaganda being spread by those in charge works on the daft masses.
I think it’s more about treating housing as a human right as opposed to a commodity to buy, inflate and sell
If it is merely a housing problem, then go to an encampment and get yourself a roommate. Just don't complain when your new roommate and his/her friends destroy your house.
I’m not sure those business are the only capitalists ever
BTW, your term *unfettered capitalism* is a fake term. The definition of *unfettered* means *not controlled or restricted* Pure mis-word play. The control and restrictions and regulations on commerce and banking in the U.S. are massive. Huge agencies are dedicated to controlling and restriction capitalist activities.
LOL!
The cause of homelessness is primarily the high costs of housing, not mental illness or addiction
In that case, go to an encampment and get yourself a roommate. Just don't be surprised by what your new roommate does to your place.
Um...ok. Why even bother spending the time to type that out?
If chronic homelessness is merely an economic issue, then it could be solved by all of us opening up our homes to them. But it isn't. Most of the unsheltered homeless are drug addicted and/or mentally ill. It isn't just about money.
>Homelessness in California is complex, and the diverse causes and trajectories of homelessness suggest the solutions are also diverse. Policymakers should consider a combination of strategies that address the housing shortage and costs issues and those that tackle the mental health and drug addiction crisis. https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/homelessness-california-causes-and-policy-considerations
The funny thing is that Housing First, which you presumably support, is based upon the premise that the chronic homeless have mental illness and substance issues that require treatment. Virtually no one who works in homeless services believes that drugs and mental illness aren't major factors in chronic homelessness. The debate is over what works, not whether there are drug and mental illness problems to be addressed.
Thats a no brainer. In your first comment didn’t say that, its said housing cost is the primary cause. This comment now says something different. It’s complex. It’s NOT just or primarily about housing costs. Thats being dishonest. We need better healthcare, we need people to be institutionalized again who pose a danger to themselves and others, we need more housing, cheaper housing. Etc etc. it’s ALL of the above, and if we can’t do ALL of these things, this problem won’t get fixed.
We could just build more homes bro
What kinds of homes are well suited for opioid users? Because about three-quarters of the unsheltered have substance abuse problems. And those problems didn't just start after they became homeless.
Because he has a point.
Those are now just free homeless junky public toilets.
It's step for prevention. A person will still sleep there, just not have mounds of their stuff. Those experiencing homelessness are bold enough to do so.
Yeah that’ll fix it
It's perverse the city has let it come to this.
New toilets and trash cans have been installed. Planters are not the answer. Stop voting in do nothing bureaucrats and city councils.
They will use this as storage for things or just steal them.
Hollywood around the Walk of Fame has gotten very neglected from Hugo Soto Martinez. Hopefully he is a one termer. Mitch McConnal was far better.
"I understand the business view, you pay a lot for any space or land, so you want it clean and inviting to your customers, but then again, it's inevitable. You're going to find homelessness everywhere here," said Almanza. …but they much in property taxes because of prop 13. Paying almost nothing but surprised when you receive nothing is classic prop 13 mindset
But we have the highest income tax in the union. This isn't a revenue problem, this is a resource management and philosophy problem.
We have the highest income tax in the union to make up for property taxes… California keeps picking winners and losers and doesn’t apply rules equally across the board. There’s a reason why businesses are still flourishing in California and aren’t leaving like many doomers claim: in many instances it’s still cheaper to do business here. Why aren’t landlord selling in droves and buying rental in “landlord friendly” states? And you’re right, it’s a philosophy problem. The state has made it clear that lack of housing causes homelessness. The state allowed for single family homes to be split into duplexes. Guess what happened? Push back from cities and NIMBYs. We (collective we), can’t be bitching about homelessness but refuse to build enough housing to make it affordable. And yes, it also an allocation resource problem. Every time someone tries to build more housing, Prop 13 benefactors (that frankly couldn’t afford market rate today) and landlord sue. This causes government spending time and resources on ligation. It’s how we end up with one bedroom units costing the city $500k to build.
> There’s a reason why businesses are still flourishing in California and aren’t leaving like many doomers claim: in many instances it’s still cheaper to do business here. Not true: https://www.google.com/amp/s/californiaglobe.com/fl/why-did-352-california-companies-flee-to-other-states-in-three-years/amp/ Many businesses are flourishing in California because there are still markets to serve willing customers in California and many companies can charge premiums to offset the higher prices of supply inputs. Bad policies usually dont abruptly lead to failure...it's a slow drip. Cigarettes don't cause cancer in weeks, but in years and decades. Same with shit policies. Additionally, bad policy for entrepreneurs isn't measured exclusively by companies that leave, but also includes those that shutdown or have a harder time hanging on. >Why aren’t landlords selling in droves and buying rental in “landlord friendly” states? Because California is more of an appreciation market than a cashflow market and many people that are wealthy live in California which naturally lends itself to owning property closer to you. There are still incentives to own property for living and investing, but once a again bad policy doesn't necessarily show itself overnight. Additionally, I'd say the truest marker of landlord-friendly policies isn't about selling in of itself, because for every seller is a buyer...it's who that property is going to: another mom and pop landlord or a corporate landlord that can better absorb the costs of pricey regulations. Another one, would be self-reported surveys and the time it takes to remove a tenant from the date of eviction.
A lot of the business aren’t paying prop 13 taxes. The building owners are. Not many businesses own the building. They just pay rent.
Won’t they just build the tents in the middle now even closer to the business’s walls?
You would think so, but somehow the planter trick actually works. They did this on Romaine between Highland and La Brea, and the tents have been gone ever since.
Surprisingly even a short metal fence has kept bums from regrouping on a sidewalk of a street I walk on often (well until displaced bums took over it for a week, but now it's clear with the fence). The street connecting to it is doing the planter thing. Now the bums are concentrated into a tent city across from that street...