The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (Fortuna: apartments, rental, home)

[jm1982]

Now homeless “advocates “ are hoping for a recession to help the homeless in la .

Yes really . This doesn’t make sense since demand and prices for rental housing actually went up last housing crash / recession .

These “advocates” come up with a lot of theories that make zero sense in reality .

They have also acknowledged that the economy benefits those that are employed .. wow what an amazing revelation!
——

Homelessness advocates say the city’s booming economy has left some residents behind
https://la.curbed.com/2019/6/7/18654...sness#comments

[jm1982]

“Why can’t city leaders solve homelessness? Because they’re politicians”

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/read...611-story.html

[Teckeeee]

Jim Garcetti has no real interest in solving the problems he benefits from the chaos. I stayed downtown twice recently at nice hotels, only to have encampments within 1/2 mile. You should have seen the security at Hotel Indigo to send a clear message to the homeless, don't you dare set foot on our property.

The roads are bad too. Not planning on going back with my $$$. I will stay in Glendale/Burbank and drive it's safe there. Safety is priority # 1 when staying with my loved ones.

WTF does Garcetti do besides his Yoga practice? I would really like to know?

When are the good people of LA going to say F**k that and take bake their town?

It's sad and maddening what is happening right now because of homeless dregs.

Starting fires, assaulting good people, Sh***ing in the streets, I could go on.

Garcetti needs to be recalled.

[PilgrimsProgress]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

It's bunk, and those of us who live here know damn well that the homeless are more dangerous than the typical non-homeless person.

Did you hear about the bum in Hollywood who had a pitbull off leash that he'd 'sic' on people in the park near Ivar in Hollywood? The dog attacked more than one person. Cops put him in jail a few days on a minor charge then let him out. I heard about this on John and Ken's show KFI 640 when someone called in who had been attacked. A woman also called in who lived in the neighborhood who said all the neighbors were scared. I made a mental note to avoid that street.

I've been attacked and chased more than once over the years. Fortunately, I can usually smell them if I am downwind so run off!

Posters vociferously defending Los Angeles probably work for the city or state. Trying to counteract the bad PR. A thankless job!

[PilgrimsProgress]

The real cost of providing bathrooms for vagrants



https://kfiam640.iheart.com/featured...-for-vagrants/

[Goinback2011]

Posters vociferously defending Los Angeles probably work for the city or state. Trying to counteract the bad PR. A thankless job!

My bet is they're paid by non-profits getting big bucks from the state providing homeless services. Those posters also propagandize in the San Francisco and Seattle threads, urban areas with significant homeless populations.

[LuvSouthOC]

All of these "myth busting" claims are predicated upon the 2019 Homeless count. All. Every single one of them. That includes the LA times.

The problem is that word has gotten out that LA County officials are asking these questions and many homeless likely perceive that they need to answer this question in a way that makes them sound like they are locals. See previous posting from Kttam on this topic, who works with the homeless in LA and made clear that word is out with the homeless.

First, the questions about where one originated are not required to be answered, and if one refuses to answer, the answers will therefore be skewed.(This means that only those who answered will have their self-reported information logged, skewing the results.) Second, many of these people are broken and there are credibility issues; many are compulsive liars, and lest we forget, many have criminal records. Third, being a resident immediately before being homeless lacks a really clear definition, and to the extent it can mean they got here three months before the homelessness and that "job fell through," I would classify such a person as being from elsewhere. In addition, the homeless often have cognitive issues and may perceive that they need to answer a certain way to get assistance (see supra). Moreover, any data reported is self reported and not verified in any way. As such, the data are unreliable.

See: https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=3...hic-survey.pdf

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

All of these "myth busting" claims are predicated upon the 2019 Homeless count. All. Every single one of them. That includes the LA times.

The problem is that word has gotten out that LA County officials are asking these questions and many homeless likely perceive that they need to answer this question in a way that makes them sound like they are locals. See previous posting from Kttam on this topic, who works with the homeless in LA and made clear that word is out with the homeless.

First, the questions about where one originated are not required to be answered, and if one refuses to answer, the answers will therefore be skewed. Second, many of these people are broken and there are credibility issues; many are compulsive liars, and lest we forget, many have criminal records. Third, being a resident immediately before being homeless lacks a really clear definition, and to the extent it can mean they got here three months before the homelessness and that "job fell through," I would classify such a person as being from elsewhere. In addition, the homeless often have cognitive issues and may perceive that they need to answer a certain way to get assistance (see supra). Moreover, any data reported is self reported and not verified in any way. As such, the data are unreliable.

See: https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=3...hic-survey.pdf

Fail, OC. Again. The conclusions of the LA count are consistent with homeless counts in cities all across the nation. And so are the myths consistent in city after city. Residents of Seattle and Portland and other cities say the same things.

And then there’s the VA study I just provided which tracked over 100,000 veterans using homeless services and also provided compatible results. And there are others. The VA data IS well verified.

Your protests lack ANY validation. Pure speculation. And ridiculous speculation at that. You are trying to turn this into a conspiracy scenario. You say things like the interviewees are motivated to lie because they perceive they’ll get better services ... but you fail to demonstrate what services those would be. In fact, there are no limitations of services based on prior or length of residency. You talk about their mental condition being incapable of coherent responses ... yet, facts are only a very minor percentage of homeless are so psychotic or otherwise delusion as to be incoherent. What about the other 95%?

And being a resident does not lack a clear definition at all. Wtf are you taking about? These are people who had, and in some cases (about 15%) still have jobs in the area. The loss of housing such as SRO buildings is well documented. Those were the last low cost housing units. This problem has been reported on since the 1980’s:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...478-story.html
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/...7_rpt_lahd.pdf
https://books.google.com/books?id=2q...ngeles&f=false

It’s happening in developing cities across the nation. Here’s an example from Oakland:
https://www.antievictionmap.com/prec...-in-oakland-1/

Where did those residents go, OC?

Get a life. Get out of this dead end of trying to prove something that’s false just to get back at me. This just isn’t your game, hoss.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

My bet is they're paid by non-profits getting big bucks from the state providing homeless services. Those posters also propagandize in the San Francisco and Seattle threads, urban areas with significant homeless populations.

Lmao. No, we’re Russian trolls.

Get a life beyond conspiracy theorizing. You lack education on the topic. Get some. Or stay out of the conversation unless you like being corrected.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Anyone with more than a single brain cell can read the post cited by CA4Now in which 2sleepy points out the gross fallacies of your application of the 12.6% stat.

I'm not reading any further. If you're going to be snotty then we're done here. I've tried to be civil to you, but if you can't engage in a civil discussion then there's nothing more to be said.