The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (Orland: traveling to, apartments, rent)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by john3232

The point isn't if they are coming from Daly City or Mesa, AZ. The point is SF is a MAGNET! The question to ask is why? And the answer was stated earlier, The combination of maximal tolerance for antisocial behavior, on the one hand, and free services and food, on the other, acts as a magnet.

That's just not true. If San Francisco is a "magnet" then so are Phoenix, Sacramento, Los Angeles, NY City and San Jose. If visible homeless disturb you that much, you could move to Alabama or West Virginia, where a single wide can be rented for next to nothing. When a homeless person can afford rent with a small pension or part time work, almost all of them choose not to sleep on the sidewalk. Also, homeless people generally avoid suburban areas like Mesa or Daly City because local residents will continue calling the cops until they eventually force the homeless out of the area. That doesn't happen in most metro areas because the homeless avoid residential areas and prefer to stay in industrial or commercial areas.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You are simply naive with regard to this issue, John. The people showing up on the streets in increasing numbers with all their addictions and other behaviors aren’t new to their problems. They are new to no housing options as they get forced out. These people have always existed. Their problems have always existed. But many had cheap ways to sleep and stash their few belongings. Now they don’t. And law enforcement budgets aren’t sufficient to ride herd, even if it were constitutionally allowed. Wealthy people aren’t going to pay for this in any amount greater than taxes levied on the total population.

No, we've reached the tipping point now those with the big bucks can't hide. And if you think they (wealthy) are going to allow 1700 homeless to set up shop five minutes from their property you're living in a dream world.

What I'm saying is once the wealthy West side is forced to "share the burden" we will see the beginnings of a backlash against the homeless. Those with the big bucks who back local and state politicians will demand action. People who spend 5-7 million for a home aren't going to put up with this bull****.

How will this be handled? Humm. I'm sure local politicians will weigh in. However, my guess is the 1st step we'll see is law enforcement starting to make life more difficult for those on the streets. No, you can't camp here. Now, move along. Homeless advocates of course will file lawsuits. Nevertheless, it won't take long before the word gets around: the party in LA is over.

Again we're talking about tens of thousands of people on on the streets. It took years to create this mess and it'll take years to return the homeless dilemma to a more manageable level. And it all starts once the wealthy are forced to.... "share the burden."

[john3232]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

That's just not true. If San Francisco is a "magnet" then so are Phoenix,[/b] Sacramento, Los Angeles, NY City and San Jose. If visible homeless disturb you that much, you could move to Alabama or West Virginia, where a single wide can be rented for next to nothing. When a homeless person can afford rent with a small pension or part time work, almost all of them choose not to sleep on the sidewalk. Also, homeless people generally avoid suburban areas like Mesa or Daly City because local residents will continue calling the cops until they eventually force the homeless out of the area. That doesn't happen in most metro areas because the homeless avoid residential areas and prefer to stay in industrial or commercial areas.

Sure it is. SF is a magnet because the homeless are basically allowed to do whatever they please.

Also, homeless people generally avoid suburban areas like Mesa or Daly City because local residents will continue calling the cops until they eventually force the homeless out of the area.

The same thing happened for years in SF. until it didn't. Maybe twenty-five year ago you weren't allowed to sleep on a city street. And in front of a store? Forget it. I remember when the homeless run amok around the Civic Center during the mid-80's. Non-stop party 24/7. However residents/local officials didn't dig it and put an end to it.

If visible homeless disturb you that much, you could move to Alabama or West Virginia, where a single wide can be rented for next to nothing.

They don't disturb me. As long as they don't infringe on my rights they can do as they please.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by john3232

The point isn't if they are coming from Daly City or Mesa, AZ. The point is SF is a MAGNET! The question to ask is why? And the answer was stated earlier, The combination of maximal tolerance for antisocial behavior, on the one hand, and free services and food, on the other, acts as a magnet.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

That's just not true. If San Francisco is a "magnet" then so are Phoenix, Sacramento, Los Angeles, NY City and San Jose. If visible homeless disturb you that much, you could move to Alabama or West Virginia, where a single wide can be rented for next to nothing. When a homeless person can afford rent with a small pension or part time work, almost all of them choose not to sleep on the sidewalk. Also, homeless people generally avoid suburban areas like Mesa or Daly City because local residents will continue calling the cops until they eventually force the homeless out of the area. That doesn't happen in most metro areas because the homeless avoid residential areas and prefer to stay in industrial or commercial areas.

… and so are Seattle and Honolulu, Portland, Chicago, Miami, Washington DC (highest per capita concentration of homeless in America right on the Capitol doorstep), Boston …

John, San Francisco isn’t #1 on that list of cities, by the way. It’s #6. And almost the same as San Diego and several other cities outside CA. … you really don’t know anything about this topic sir.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by john3232

No, we've reached the tipping point now those with the big bucks can't hide. And if you think they (wealthy) are going to allow 1700 homeless to set up shop five minutes from their property you're living in a dream world.

What I'm saying is once the wealthy West side is forced to "share the burden" we will see the beginnings of a backlash against the homeless. Those with the big bucks who back local and state politicians will demand action. People who spend 5-7 million for a home aren't going to put up with this bull****.

How will this be handled? Humm. I'm sure local politicians at some point will weigh in. However, my guess is the 1st step we'll see is law enforcement starting to make life more difficult for those on the streets. No, you can't camp here. Now, move along. Homeless advocates of course will file lawsuits. Nevertheless, it won't take long before the word gets around: the party in LA is over.

Again we're talking about tens of thousands of people on on the streets. It took years to create this mess and it'll take years to return the homeless dilemma to a more manageable level. And it all starts once the wealthy are forced to.... "share the burden."

Lol … Those big bucks have never been hiding. They’ve been passing the buck. And will continue. You’re right that people who spend $5 mil for a home won’t put up with homeless camps. But that pushing around will be like rearranging chairs on the Titanic deck, just as it’s always been. You, and the rich, aren’t ‘solving’ anything.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

… and so are Seattle and Honolulu, Portland, Chicago, Miami, Washington DC (highest per capita concentration of homeless in America right on the Capitol doorstep), Boston …

John, San Francisco isn’t #1 on that list of cities, by the way. It’s #6. And almost the same as San Diego and several other cities outside CA. … you really don’t know anything about this topic sir.

So what? The fact is 30% of the homeless in SF are not from the city. Why? Ans: The combination of maximal tolerance for antisocial behavior, on the one hand, and free services and food, on the other, acts as a magnet.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Lol … Those big bucks have never been hiding. They’ve been passing the buck. And will continue. You’re right that people who spend $5 mil for a home won’t put up with homeless camps. But that pushing around will be like rearranging chairs on the Titanic deck, just as it’s always been. You, and the rich, aren’t ‘solving’ anything.

Nope, not when a homeless camp is five minutes from their house. And not when they start camping in the parks where children play. And not when start flooding the areas they shop.

Nope, the wealthy will demand action and they got the political clout. It's been fashionable to support the homeless but now... now that it's coming to where they live? Forget it.

[V8 Vega]

If these Democrat party cities including here would start enforcing the laws, every little law, the word would quickly get around, the party's over in LA.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

If these Democrat party cities including here would start enforcing the laws, every little law, the word would quickly get around, the party's over in LA.

My brother and his wife are big Dem supporters. Big-time liberals who live no more than 3-5 mins. from Will Rogers beach. Today they are screaming mad at Mike Bonin as are many residents of Pacific Palisades because of his proposal to house 1700 homeless in the Will Rogers beach parking area.

Personally, I have little sympathy for him and hope Mike Bonin succeeds. I agree with my brother it will turn into a disaster. However, he can't have it both ways.

If he wants to talk the lib. talk than he needs to walk the lib walk and accept 1700 of the finest homeless downtown LA has to offer.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by john3232

My brother and his wife are big Dem supporters. Big-time liberals who live no more than 3-5 mins. from Will Rogers beach. Today they are screaming mad at Mike Bonin as are many residents of Pacific Palisades because of his proposal to house 1700 homeless in the Will Rogers beach parking area.

Personally, I have little sympathy for him and hope Mike Bonin succeeds.

Bonin sounds out of touch, and doesn't even have the courtesy to respond to inquiries and/or suggestions. There's got to be a different way to work on this.

“I could not even have a conversation with Mike Bonin,” (Venice resident) Arthur Kraus said, telling me he has sent numerous emails and photos to the councilman’s office without a response.

Every part of the city has people “who are for the homeless or against the homeless,” Arthur said, but there’s no consensus, or middle ground, or leadership.

“It’s gotten to the point where it’s not democracy anymore,” he said. “It’s anarchy.”

Does he have all the solutions? No. More housing, for sure, he said. But not at $500,000 per unit. What’s wrong with dormitory-style housing, he asked, at least transitionally, so more people can move indoors more quickly?

“We need to get all the people in one room and say, look, we have to come to some decisions … and figure out what are we going to do with the sick people, what are we going to do with the veterans. There are veterans sleeping outside the VA,” he said.

“You have to have a plan and you have to have markers. I don’t know what the markers are, but every month you need a report saying what progress has been made…. You have to keep score, and feet have to be held to the fire.”

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...blic-officials