The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (Sunnyvale, Mountain View: low cost, properties, sunny)

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

The problem is it creates a situation where people are paying 50, 60, 70% of their income in rent just to get these units.

I agree.

The solution, therefore, is to relocate those people elsewhere to a place where they no longer pay 50, 60, 70% of their income in rent.

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

This creates a situation where they cant really save a meaningful amount.

I agree.

The solution, therefore, is to relocate those people elsewhere to a place where they no longer pay 50, 60, 70% of their income in rent.

Originally Posted by pittsflyer

Most people are about 6 months away from being homeless, best case, in alot of cases a few pay checks away from it. Rent prices are the reason for that, people technically have the money for said rent but it eats into their ability to save/build a buisness/etc.

I agree.

The solution, therefore, is to relocate those people elsewhere to a place where they no longer pay 50, 60, 70% of their income in rent.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Maybe you can continue this discussion on your other thread about pensions. This thread is about homelessness in Los Angeles.

OK. Good point.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

I agree.

The solution, therefore, is to relocate those people elsewhere to a place where they no longer pay 50, 60, 70% of their income in rent.




I agree.

The solution, therefore, is to relocate those people elsewhere to a place where they no longer pay 50, 60, 70% of their income in rent.



I agree.

The solution, therefore, is to relocate those people elsewhere to a place where they no longer pay 50, 60, 70% of their income in rent.

Trouble is you can't relocate them. They must do it themselves or .....

[rodentraiser]

Originally Posted by ryanst530

I was watching a docu-series on Netflix a few months ago called "World's Toughest Prisons". The first episode in this series takes place at Danli prison in Honduras, which is essentially an autonomous prison whereby inmates manage themselves. The guards would assign certain prisoners the role of policing the other inmates, and keeping order to the place. Inmates aren't confined to cells. They are free to make their own food, buy their own food, and run their own economy. I thought the idea was rather interesting, and perhaps that model could be applied to California's homeless problem...

Set up designated areas where non-mentally ill homeless people would live. They would run their own economy, are free to perform jobs for the outside world in exchange for money, goods and/or services. They can apply for jobs on the outside world whenever they want, and if/when they land a job, they are free to leave. Those who choose not to work must stay.

I know something like this would never happen, but it would make for an interesting experiment.

I was watching an UK show called "Panorama" and they did a special about poverty in America. I was curious to see how foreign eyes would see the US. Even for me, it was an eye opener.

I won't go into the many things I saw because they don't fit here, but one of the things they recorded was when around 2008-2010 a city in Michigan (might have been Detroit - I can't remember now) had absolutely no place to send the homeless. Instead, they referred them to a camp in the woods that was run by one of the homeless people there. They had rules regarding how you could cook, how to act, etc.

Personally, I could also see a homeless camp run the same way and have it be successful. There's two problems with that.:

1) Where would you put it? No matter how well behaved a camp is, no one is going to want it where they or anyone else can see it.

2) The people who wouldn't be allowed in the camp would be the continual troublemakers (people with mental issues), alcoholics, and those who are drug addicted. These people would have to find somewhere else to camp and guess what? These are the people you see today who are the most visible and who cause the majority of trouble on the streets.

As I've stated before, the homeless people you don't notice aren't the problem. The few that do cause problems are the ones you see all the time - the squeaky wheels. Even people who want to help the homeless don't want to help them and these are the ones that need the help the most: drug treatment centers, institutions, rehab, and a place to stay to get them off the streets.

I think the question isn't so much how to help the homeless (many homeless can help themselves, especially if they're working), but instead the question is, how do you control the dregs of humanity that are out of control, and just happen to be homeless?

[Texamichiforniasota]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

No, let's hear you come up with a solution that is constitutional since your first one wasn't.

It actually doesn't take a lot of changes to make it constitutional. You just give them the freedom to leave whenever they want, maybe run a bus line from there to the metrolink station. Subsidize transit passes for them so they can get to work.

Then we will have the needed shelter beds for the homeless, and vagrancy laws can be aggressively enforced constitutionally. Anyone caught trying to camp on the street or in parks in town, you give them the option, arrest or a middle of the night ride back to the camp. Some will skip bail or choose to go to jail. You just keep escalating the sentences for repeat offenders until they are off the street, one way or another.

The next problem is what to do with the mentally ill who aren't able to provide for themselves. You love to post about how, constitutionally, we have to let mentally ill people roam the street. That is a misinterpretation of the law. There is currently a movement underway to redefine what it means to be "gravely disabled." Currently the standard is unclear and therefore the government gives the mentally ill a wide latitude, but a reasonable person could define gravely disabled as an adult being unable to provide suitable shelter/food/hygiene for oneself due to mental illness. There is a move in Sacramento now to clarify the definition:

Should California expand what it means to be 'gravely disabled'?

Once that changes, the state will be able to provide care for those who are too disabled from mental illness to provide sufficiently for themselves.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Texamichiforniasota

The next problem is what to do with the mentally ill who aren't able to provide for themselves. You love to post about how, constitutionally, we have to let mentally ill people roam the street. That is a misinterpretation of the law. There is currently a movement underway to redefine what it means to be "gravely disabled." Currently the standard is unclear and therefore the government gives the mentally ill a wide latitude, but a reasonable person could define gravely disabled as an adult being unable to provide suitable shelter/food/hygiene for oneself due to mental illness. There is a move in Sacramento now to clarify the definition:

Should California expand what it means to be 'gravely disabled'?

Once that changes, the state will be able to provide care for those who are too disabled from mental illness to provide sufficiently for themselves.

The criteria for 51-50 is actually quite clear. https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...res-manual.pdf (see page 244)

Until the criteria is changed that ^ is the criteria, period.

PS you have no idea what I "love to do"

[rodentraiser]

Here ya go:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/h...184900031.html

[Texamichiforniasota]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

The criteria for 51-50 is actually quite clear. https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...res-manual.pdf (see page 244)

Until the criteria is changed that ^ is the criteria, period.

PS you have no idea what I "love to do"

The only thing that's clear is that gravely disabled isn't well defined, and it certainly isn't defined in the document you posted, if you bothered to read it. In fact under mental health holds, included under reasons for holds on page 244 is the term, 'gravely disabled,' but doesn't define what that term means, exactly as I had said in my post. That is why the legislature is working on clarifying what is intended by "gravely disabled, " and will likely broadly expand the interpretation that most first responders currently use.

[jm1982]

Homeless showers might be coming to Metro rail stations soon .

—
To promote hygiene and quell the spread of infectious diseases among LA’s growing homeless population, Metro is weighing whether to put showers and bathrooms in or near some of its 93 train stations.


https://la.curbed.com/2018/4/25/1728...omeless-trains

[sickofla]

If minimum rents matched minimum wage we'd see less of this.

"The world needs ditch diggers too" Yes, and these ditch diggers also need a place to lay their head at the end of the day.

We all want the lowly service people to be there for us when we want a burger or some clothing... but god forbid they want a place to sleep that costs less than $1500 a month... "not our problem, they should have done better in life".

People want all the convenience that comes with service workers, but have no interest in making sure they have a standard of life that is livable. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.