The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (Vernon: for sale, 2013, apartments)

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Repeal prop 47 why? Four other states recently adopted it, no one is keen on going back to imprisoning people at the cost of $90,000 a year for possession of a small amount of drugs.

Have you heard of one single person in CA who works in law enforcement and who does not say that Prop 47 has caused an increase in crime? Ask a LEO the next time you see one.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Have you heard of one single person in CA who works in law enforcement and who does not say that Prop 47 has caused an increase in crime? Ask a LEO the next time you see one.

yes I have but I'm not going to get into that with you. I don't know personally know any cops who think that putting people in prison for minor non-violent crimes is a good idea, and that's exactly what we were doing before prop 47 passed. In addition to California, Utah, Connecticut, Alaska, and Oklahoma have all dropped the classification for drug possession for personal use to a misdemeanor - do you consider all of those states to be 'soft on crime'? You're stuck in the past thinking like people did 30 years ago, that somehow if we punish people who do drugs harshly enough that will 'fix them', well it doesn't.

[V8 Vega]

Prop 47 does a lot more than let off minor drug offences. It lets out major crimes career criminals.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

yes I have but I'm not going to get into that with you. I don't know personally know any cops who think that putting people in prison for minor non-violent crimes is a good idea, and that's exactly what we were doing before prop 47 passed. In addition to California, Utah, Connecticut, Alaska, and Oklahoma have all dropped the classification for drug possession for personal use to a misdemeanor - do you consider all of those states to be 'soft on crime'? You're stuck in the past thinking like people did 30 years ago, that somehow if we punish people who do drugs harshly enough that will 'fix them', well it doesn't.

If you don't want to get into it, then why do you keep bringing it up in this thread? Even L.A.'s Mayor has admitted that Prop 47 has increased crime, and I can't remember how many business owners I've seen interviewed on television or heard on the radio talking about the harm Prop 47 has been doing to them. There was even a business owner being interviewed for a television report and during the interview the camera catches people in the background grabbing stuff and then running out the front door!

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

Prop 47 does a lot more than let off minor drug offences. It lets out major crimes career criminals.

No it doesn't. Go read the law and you will see that what you are claiming makes zero sense

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

If you don't want to get into it, then why do you keep bringing it up in this thread? Even L.A.'s Mayor has admitted that Prop 47 has increased crime, and I can't remember how many business owners I've seen interviewed on television or heard on the radio talking about the harm Prop 47 has been doing to them. There was even a business owner being interviewed for a television report and during the interview the camera catches people in the background grabbing stuff and then running out the front door!

I keep bringing it up? I responded to a poster who mentioned it and you jumped in..sheesh. The retail industry is always against raising the felony threshold for shoplifting, nothing new about that but it didn't deter Texas from raising their threshold to $2500, which is a whole lot more than California's and in states that have raised the threshold theft has not increased.

The value of states’ felony theft thresholds—whether set at $500, $1,000, or $2,000—is not correlated with property crime and larceny rates. Florida, for example, treats theft as a felony if the value of stolen money or goods exceeds $300, but its property crime and larceny rates are considerably higher than those in Pennsylvania, where the threshold is $2,000. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...eft-thresholds

[JohnG72]

Concerned about getting filth and trash and disease off the streets. Not being done. Needs to be done.

La politicians aren’t doing it. Until they do, I could give two craps about the excuses.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Have you heard of one single person in CA who works in law enforcement and who does not say that Prop 47 has caused an increase in crime?

There's a Prop 47 thread here somewhere....post your complaints there. And with all the contacts in law enforcement you that say you have, why not do something about the problem instead of complaining? Volunteer at a shelter? Serve a meal?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by JohnG72

Concerned about getting filth and trash and disease off the streets. Not being done. Needs to be done.

La politicians aren’t doing it. Until they do, I could give two craps about the excuses.

If you are concerned about “getting trash off the streets” then you should address the city’s trash disposal rates and policies that drive businesses and individual (housed) residents to dump illegally in the dark of night all over. Homeless are not consumers with disposable income to purchase hardly anything that results in shipping materials, excess food waste, broken hard goods, discarded clothing, etc etc etc being cast aside. The homeless are local scavengers redistributing trash they find right around where they camp. They don’t produce these mountains of trash. They don’t have trucks and cars and gas money to travel around collecting it from any distance. They just find it within easy walking distance and drag to their camps ... then leave it.

Is it filthy? Certainly is. Does it originate with the homeless? No it doesn’t.

As for disease? Certain diseases such as small outbreaks of tuberculosis and HepA do occur in homeless camps. However, there’s no evidence of these diseases being spread to the general public (although the danger does exist). In fact, the epidemiologists in the health departments are constantly monitoring for these problems and quick to act aggressively to contain and squelch them. The recent (last year) outbreak of typhus occurred at high rates in the LA area, mostly outside of homeless camps - although there were multiple case in Skid Row as well. Once again, epidemiologists determined the source was not the homeless. Typhus is endemic to the LA region. Been here since before humans. Climate is apparently particularly conducive, as is true in certain other locations in the US where the disease thrives every year. Texas, in areas not afflicted with homeless camps, has the worst history with typhus. The strain in LA’s cases is spread by fleas that prefer feral cats and rodents including opossum and raccoons and yes, including rats. Which rodents are also endemic to the LA area. In fact, LA is world famous for being a Rat Central region since well before homelessness.

There are many ugly aspects of the homeless problem. It’s disgusting, disruptive, disappointing and unacceptable for a number of solid reasons. You haven’t hit on any of them. All you are doing is hate/fear-mongering by conflating false myths with the failure of our socio-economic system ... the same system that brings luxury and ease to the majority ... fails those of marginalized populations incapable of competing at the required levels.

[JohnG72]

Nope. Clean the streets, move the homeless. Don’t care how. Your apologies and stalling only hurt those who live in proximity.

As I said earlier, exit the 110 south at Vernon and take flower st down a couple miles and tell me what problems the city is solving.

Only took 3-4 years to create the problem at its current magnitude. They’ve now been working on a solution for 3-4 years with the result of making the problem worse.

Excuses over. Fix the problem and fix it now. Your post is straight BS.