Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
there are already non profits who do good things for society. there are food banks for the hungry. and the problem is homelessness.
so the solution is to build homes/houses/shelter. if you build in the city, it costs a lot. so why not build outside the city, say Palmdale? then bring the food banks there, the non profits who are feeding the homeless and hungry? they need not build high rises or multi family homes. maybe barracks style, where they can put down their mattresses or sleeping bags. then assign cops to patrol the shelters this is better than the homeless sleeping in the streets if somebody needs warm bodies, just go these shelters and pick those who are willing to work
Why should they volunteer to go to Palmdale in order to sleep on cots in a police patrolled shelter? If I was homeless, I sure wouldn't sign up for that. Anyway, they have those 'barrack style' shelters in LA anyway, the problem is that the homeless don't want to stay in them they are filthy, lack privacy and assaults and thefts occur on a daily basis.
Well, lol ... I'm glad I gave you a LOT of rope to hang yourself
2sleepy and I are each retired on welfare? You "suspect" this because? Because you've just been thoroughly schooled - and flunked.
Flunked by who? Anonymous people who quite possibly haven't graduated from high school? Nobody "flunks " me. Keep deluding yourself.
You made the attacks ad hominem because I brought up points you felt uncomfortable discussing.
A: While of course there are white homeless in LA, the homeless population downtown is mostly Black and that has everything to do with horrible public policy and the legacy of racism in the US. Dumping people marginalized by race (the war against drugs has often been a war against Black people) is an absolutely horrible idea. They need to be integrated into the rest of society, not bounced from welfare program to welfare program (supportive housing is a welfare program). Many of these people have not graduated high school or they barely graduated high school, and it's fairly well know that there is a school to prison pipeline and that those who do poorly in school or who don't graduate are much more likely to have encounters with the criminal justice system. This is true of the ENTIRE nation.
there are already non profits who do good things for society. there are food banks for the hungry. and the problem is homelessness.
so the solution is to build homes/houses/shelter. if you build in the city, it costs a lot. so why not build outside the city, say Palmdale? then bring the food banks there, the non profits who are feeding the homeless and hungry?
they need not build high rises or multi family homes. maybe barracks style, where they can put down their mattresses or sleeping bags.
then assign cops to patrol the shelters
this is better than the homeless sleeping in the streets
if somebody needs warm bodies, just go these shelters and pick those who are willing to work
Who pays for the housing? Housing has a lot of costs. Overall maintenance, utilities, etc. Just building a home does no good, as it has to be kept in good working order. So who is going to pay to house these people.
As for picking up those willing to work, yes wonderful idea. However there are barriers to employment such as lack of education/skills, criminal records, etc. These things can be dealt with, but they would take a lot of time and money.
Keep in mind it is hard to live in a major city on the minimum wage, and you certainly won't be renting an apartment or buying a home on the minimum wage. It's difficult if you don't have family that can accommodate you. You could live in housing situations with multiple people to a room (this exists in LA and other big cities around the country) though this often violates the occupancy laws. There are definite issues with the housing market and the job market that certainly are a major factor in pushing people toward's homelessness.
And you can't figure out why that is? But you don't live here so.
Here are two reasons 1) the neighborhood that borders Griffith Park 2) the topography of the park, it's not the easiest terrain to maneuver.
Yes, and in those 3rd world countries you can be jailed for being gay. Get you hand chopped off for stealing. This is the US(well somewhat still the US, the powers that be want a police state).
Perhaps you would like a Nazi Germany approach "get your belongings and get in zee truck". For those you don't approve of.
Well as you know we have posters who have never lived in LA, but visited so they know more than long term residents.
So this isn't surprising.
And if we went out for any job in public policy that dealt with homelessness in California or anywhere else, I would get the job long before you. I have the degrees and the credentials to get the work, you others on this thread don't.
A homeless junkie in Skid Row could have lived in LA his entire life. That does not mean he is able to articulate what causes homelessness or what solutions should be implemented to deal with the problem.
You have homeless in LA for the same reason you have it in other American cities, INCLUDING NYC! And again you like some others resort to ad hominem attacks out of an actual ability to actually discuss policy and to actually deal with the true causes of homelessness.
Most of the people on Skid Row are Black, for the same reason Black people around the nation are disproportionately effected by poverty and disproportionately IMPRISONED. California is not UNIQUE at ALL.
It is important to be from a place, but just because you are from a place does NOT make you an undisputed authority on the place.
For that matter, since this is an anonymous thread nobody knows where ANYONE actually lives. You're posting on the LA thread, but there's no proof of where you live or where I live or where ANYONE LIVES. So for anyone to get as bent out of shape as you just got seems rather foolish.
Who pays for the housing? Housing has a lot of costs. Overall maintenance, utilities, etc. Just building a home does no good, as it has to be kept in good working order. So who is going to pay to house these people.
As for picking up those willing to work, yes wonderful idea. However there are barriers to employment such as lack of education/skills, criminal records, etc. These things can be dealt with, but they would take a lot of time and money.
Keep in mind it is hard to live in a major city on the minimum wage, and you certainly won't be renting an apartment or buying a home on the minimum wage. It's difficult if you don't have family that can accommodate you. You could live in housing situations with multiple people to a room (this exists in LA and other big cities around the country) though this often violates the occupancy laws. There are definite issues with the housing market and the job market that certainly are a major factor in pushing people toward's homelessness.
And more proof of your inability to grasp the topic here. And your unwillingness to even read the information provided you over and over about financing homelessness.
The answer to your question of "who pays" is: we are all already paying. More funds always serve more needs, but the funds are already being [poorly] spent. By the ten's of millions.
Further, no one in the field of homeless outreach and service suggests any homeless will be buying - or necessarily even renting - the basic rescue facilities of private rooms with locks.
Finally here, your comment about "occupancy laws" is hilarious. Multiple occupancy of rooms is not a serviceable solution - as you would understand if you were educated on the topic.
Black 39%
Hispanic 27%
White 26%
Pacific Is. 1%
Native Am. 2%
Other/mixed 4%
Asian 1%
Which puts the big lie to your claim that most homeless in L.A. are local, as that doesn't look like the demographics of L.A. or any other city in California.
Which puts the big lie to your claim that most homeless in L.A. are local, as that doesn't look like the demographics of L.A. or any other city in California.
No it doesn't. The research has been published here time and time again. Get over it. The homeless are not very migratory. It is studied to death by academia and agencies. They all concur. And the common sense that homeless would migrate to better weather and places offering resource help is vastly overridden by reality, if you take the time to think it through.
Parse it out by rough category:
The severely mentally ill,
the alcoholic and addicted,
and those generally fallen into destitution by unfavorable circumstances of employment or medical problems / bills.
No airline, train, or even overland bus management / drivers /pilots will allow the first two on board their respective vehicle even if they could buy a ticket and even if they weren't completely filthy. The severely mentally ill furthermore pretty much don't know how to prepare for and manage travel - nor do they really analyze weather or resources. They don't even think rationally to care.
Furthermore, alcoholics and drug abusers primary concern is their next bottle / fix. They stay where they know how to get it and consume it and be with their sad brotherhood. They can't get their bottles on airplanes and would be kicked off even a bus if they were caught getting drunk / high - which is what they do. Everyday. Without exception.
So we come to the third category: the formerly employed - who are trying to get back into their lives whatever way they can. These people stay where they know family, friends, former co-workers and have that connection and support network. They want to network where they are familiar a.s.a.p. They don't want to cut cross-country with little to no resources or connections into a completely unknown environment when they have nothing or next to nothing to sustain them.
Who's left to travel about wantonly? Roughly 10% of the nation's homeless fall into a minor category we used to call hobos and bums. Travelers. Yeah, there's some like that. Mostly young and on a temporary path of freedom - until they fall into addiction and abuse and illness - or get out and employed.
No it doesn't. The research has been published here time and time again. Get over it. The homeless are not very migratory. It is studied to death by academia and agencies. They all concur. And the common sense that homeless would migrate to better weather and places offering resource help is vastly overridden by reality, if you take the time to think it through.
Parse it out by rough category:
The severely mentally ill,
the alcoholic and addicted,
and those generally fallen into destitution by unfavorable circumstances of employment or medical problems / bills.
No airline, train, or even overland bus management / drivers /pilots will allow the first two on board their respective vehicle even if they could buy a ticket and even if they weren't completely filthy. The severely mentally ill furthermore pretty much don't know how to prepare for and manage travel - nor do they really analyze weather or resources. They don't even think rationally to care.
Furthermore, alcoholics and drug abusers primary concern is their next bottle / fix. They stay where they know how to get it and consume it and be with their sad brotherhood. They can't get their bottles on airplanes and would be kicked off even a bus if they were caught getting drunk / high - which is what they do. Everyday. Without exception.
So we come to the third category: the formerly employed - who are trying to get back into their lives whatever way they can. These people stay where they know family, friends, former co-workers and have that connection and support network. They want to network where they are familiar a.s.a.p. They don't want to cut cross-country with little to no resources or connections into a completely unknown environment when they have nothing or next to nothing to sustain them.
Who's left to travel about wantonly? Roughly 10% of the nation's homeless fall into a minor category we used to call hobos and bums. Travelers. Yeah, there's some like that. Mostly young and on a temporary path of freedom - until they fall into addiction and abuse and illness - or get out and employed.
No it doesn't. The research has been published here time and time again. Get over it. The homeless are not very migratory. It is studied to death by academia and agencies. They all concur. And the common sense that homeless would migrate to better weather and places offering resource help is vastly overridden by reality, if you take the time to think it through.
Parse it out by rough category:
The severely mentally ill,
the alcoholic and addicted,
and those generally fallen into destitution by unfavorable circumstances of employment or medical problems / bills.
No airline, train, or even overland bus management / drivers /pilots will allow the first two on board their respective vehicle even if they could buy a ticket and even if they weren't completely filthy. The severely mentally ill furthermore pretty much don't know how to prepare for and manage travel - nor do they really analyze weather or resources. They don't even think rationally to care.
Furthermore, alcoholics and drug abusers primary concern is their next bottle / fix. They stay where they know how to get it and consume it and be with their sad brotherhood. They can't get their bottles on airplanes and would be kicked off even a bus if they were caught getting drunk / high - which is what they do. Everyday. Without exception.
So we come to the third category: the formerly employed - who are trying to get back into their lives whatever way they can. These people stay where they know family, friends, former co-workers and have that connection and support network. They want to network where they are familiar a.s.a.p. They don't want to cut cross-country with little to no resources or connections into a completely unknown environment when they have nothing or next to nothing to sustain them.
Who's left to travel about wantonly? Roughly 10% of the nation's homeless fall into a minor category we used to call hobos and bums. Travelers. Yeah, there's some like that. Mostly young and on a temporary path of freedom - until they fall into addiction and abuse and illness - or get out and employed.
Polemics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
