The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (Santa Monica, West Hollywood: 2014, transfer to, tenants)

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by expatCA

This is so true. It isn't simply how much a person makes, it is how careful they are with what they do make, and so many today throw it away.

This does not obviously cover all people, but the poor today do not live in tents, that is the homeless who are (generally) the real poor.

Yes, it is.

It's the great American way, live above your means to impress others.

I agree, it's not all poor. But many of the poor today have full cable and fancy phones.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I've been poor and I've worked with the poor, I don't know any who buy $5 starbucks coffees or $300 phones. You are more than welcome to invent stereotypes of the poor but that doesn't mean that anyone will believe them.

I have been poor as well, love how you ignored the fact that you can still put aside some money. I did it.

Get real, there are plenty of people who spend everything they earn, whether they're making $30K a year or 100K a year, they get a big salary increase and instead of keeping their lifestyle the same they have to now have a higher end car, move to more a luxury apt, etc.

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

True, and as CA4now said. We’re not getting passes to Disneyland, and getting luxuries. Many people that I know within my age group are living with roomates and working multiple jobs.

None of us honestly have much hope that we’ll own a home. Just hope that we have a roof over our heads. At this point we just hope to do more than just simply survive. We just want to have the careers we worked hard for and a decent place to live.

I think thats the big difference. Previous generations dreamt of extravance. We just wanna not be homeless lol.

Please...you think you're the first generation to have live with multiple roommates? I moved here in 1988 out of college and didn't get my own apartment alone until 1996.

And younger people living with roommates was going on long before I got here in 88, the problem today and maybe it's true of all younger generations, is they think they invented or are the first ones to have to struggle, it's not something new.

Your generation isn't buying the latest electronics? How come on the news anytime there is a new Apple release they show the line of people, they're pretty much all under 35. Not just here in LA, but all across the country, I always think how wasteful, do you really need that, how about saving the money instead?

Awhile back there was a club called "The Abbey" in West Hollywood where smart phones were being stolen and young women who left their drinks unattended were getting drugged. All 20 somethings who had their $600 phones stolen and their $15 drinks tampered with.

So let's not pretend, shall we. Not saying all millinneals are like this, but go through Hollywood any night of the week and the ones standing in line to pay $20 cover charges to get into these clubs are not middle aged people.

[BrooklynJo]

Originally Posted by takuriver

New York City is notorious for relocating homeless to different cities. The use bus, train and airplane.

Until you have a "cure" for addiction, you'll always have homeless. It's just a shell game.

Prove it or didn’t happen!

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by seain dublin

Please...you think you're the first generation to have live with multiple roommates? I moved here in 1988 out of college and didn't get my own apartment alone until 1996.

And younger people living with roommates was going on long before I got here in 88, the problem today and maybe it's true of all younger generations, is they think they invented or are the first ones to have to struggle, it's not something new.

Wow. When I was just out of college, back in the Stone Age, the rent for our apartment in West L.A. was $400 for a 2 bedroom apartment, in a new building with security. Health insurance was under $12 deducted from your paycheck. Few people had student loans. We used typewriters; there was no fee for either television or (obviously) the Internet. Telephone answering machines were only for the select few who could afford them.

So, come on. It was nothing like it is now for this generation.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Not really, mutt. Just that many of us had the chance to at least purchase a home that we could afford--and in which our kids could grow up--with basic expectations such as neighborhood friends and decent public schools.

Not a lot to ask. And that's out of reach to many of the younger generation today, at least in this state.

Yep, and it's out of reach to people in other states too, but California is always used as the example of everything that's wrong with the economy. In Northern Nevada warehouse work is about as good as it gets for a high school graduate with no specific skills. The pay is around $12-$13 an hour. It's never been easy for a low wage worker there but apartments that rented for $700 four years ago now going for $1200, not to mention a vacancy rate of 1.4% which means that landlords can be very picky and refuse to rent to people with a single blemish on their credit.

So, where do they live? Mostly in $200 a week seedy motels most of which are being torn down to make room for more expensive housing. What's next for them? Living in their cars I guess...

[majoun]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Wow. When I was just out of college, back in the Stone Age, the rent for our apartment in West L.A. was $400 for a 2 bedroom apartment, in a new building with security. Health insurance was under $12 deducted from your paycheck. Few people had student loans. We used typewriters; there was no fee for either television or (obviously) the Internet. Telephone answering machines were only for the select few who could afford them. .

And there was no rent control. And zoning regulations were more lenient....

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Wow. When I was just out of college, back in the Stone Age, the rent for our apartment in West L.A. was $400 for a 2 bedroom apartment, in a new building with security. Health insurance was under $12 deducted from your paycheck. Few people had student loans. We used typewriters; there was no fee for either television or (obviously) the Internet. Telephone answering machines were only for the select few who could afford them.

So, come on. It was nothing like it is now for this generation.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Yep, and it's out of reach to people in other states too, but California is always used as the example of everything that's wrong with the economy. In Northern Nevada warehouse work is about as good as it gets for a high school graduate with no specific skills. The pay is around $12-$13 an hour. It's never been easy for a low wage worker there but apartments that rented for $700 four years ago now going for $1200, not to mention a vacancy rate of 1.4% which means that landlords can be very picky and refuse to rent to people with a single blemish on their credit.

So, where do they live? Mostly in $200 a week seedy motels most of which are being torn down to make room for more expensive housing. What's next for them? Living in their cars I guess...

You are both correct in your observations. What I think is also important for people to ponder is: only for part of the last century was it ever possible to have ownership of homes and cars and material wealth and investments as was the case you refer to now as benchmark.

For thousands and thousands of years, only nobility and the sharpest of the merchant class lived with security and property comforts and leisure. Opportunities to prosper and enter nobility status or be a highly successful merchant were rare as hens' teeth. Along comes the industrial revolution - things slowly start to change. More opportunities. Consumerism as a cultural model was then advanced by some market economists and banker types. Technology fed the machine. Voila - off to the races! Population explodes. Houston, we have a virtually unlimited market for our productivity!

This is recent. Blink of an historical eye. And now, opportunities abound. But the model we sell ourselves is completely unsustainable. Hundreds of millions of Americans ... and 7 billion humans worldwide ... can't live in single family homes with fenced yards, multi-car garages full of gleaming machines and toys, thousands of square feet of climate controlled view rooms full of entertainment and labor saving devices, walk-in closets full of trendy fashions ... all located in pleasurable climates.

Even were the material aspects derived sustainably and waste produced not toxic ... the human body/mind can't process and manage the physical and psychological demands of so much ownership and distraction.

Old nobility had the money and power to have their world cared for by the indentured. The general population has to take care of its own crap individually.

The more we perpetuate these material myths ... the more people will end up on the streets.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by majoun

And there was no rent control.

Actually, I knew a couple of people who lived in rent controlled buildings in Santa Monica then. One was an attorney.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Actually, I knew a couple of people who lived in rent controlled buildings in Santa Monica then. One was an attorney.

In the time period youre talking about there was no rent control anywhere in California and there had not been any since Truman was president. There was rent control in a few Eastern cities, though.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by majoun

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

You're mistaken.

Santa Monica: Where tenants rule | Santa Monica Daily Press

Timeline: Rent Stabilization in Southern California | scpr.org

Santa Monica - A Case Study in Growth and Rent Control

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by majoun

And there was no rent control. And zoning regulations were more lenient....

Because back then L.A. wasn't immensely overpopulated, but here we are...