Orange County Homeless Thread (Los Angeles, Santa Ana: lawyers, shopping centers, beaches)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I'll help mutt out here:


https://www.ocregister.com/2017/12/1...rn-california/

Originally Posted by max210

So more than 50?

BTW, I would love to have 100 less homeless roaming around, stealing stuff so they can get their fix.

So, my first reaction was:
Thanks Sleepy for saving me the trouble

Next reaction was:
Hmmm, I’m surprised the number is estimated as high as 100.
And then I realized the 100 figure wasn’t specified as “out of state rehab dropouts” ... but ALL rehab dropouts, including those from California.

So, yeah: “more than 50” total ... but no: not “100 out of state rehab dropouts” ...

... like I said ... you angry people call this a problem to focus on in the grand scheme?

The rehab scam is just that. It is deplorable. It needs to be controlled. But it is not a signifcant contributor to OC homelessness, no.

[BB_210]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Why ask? I posted the information for you, here it is again.

Being pedantic doesn't accomplish anything here.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

So, my first reaction was:
Thanks Sleepy for saving me the trouble

Next reaction was:
Hmmm, I’m surprised the number is estimated as high as 100.
And then I realized the 100 figure wasn’t specified as “out of state rehab dropouts” ... but ALL rehab dropouts, including those from California.

So, yeah: “more than 50” total ... but no: not “100 out of state rehab dropouts” ...

... like I said ... you angry people call this a problem to focus on in the grand scheme?

The rehab scam is just that. It is deplorable. It needs to be controlled. But it is not a signifcant contributor to OC homelessness, no.

Who is angry? Lol.

Let's wait to see the findings from the taskforce. Even if it's a minor its still a contributor and worth plugging that hole. Why so much resistance? Arguing for the sake of arguing. "Yeah but this and that..."

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by max210

Being pedantic doesn't accomplish anything here.

Neither does asking questions to which one already knows the answer.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by max210

Who is angry? Lol.

Let's wait to see the findings from the taskforce. Even if it's a minor its still a contributor and worth plugging that hole. Why so much resistance? Arguing for the sake of arguing. "Yeah but this and that..."

Didn’t refer to you specifically as “angry”. Identified that there are several here who post in incessant outrage.

1% (or less) barely qualifies any mention “as a contributor” given the size of the overall problem.

It IS worth plugging up on the basis of it being a scam alone. But as a homeless population stream? Phbbbt.

Resistance? Arguing for the sake of arguing? Lmmfao ... the reason I have come to camp out in this thread in recent months is to avocationally counter the ridiculous and counterproductive “arguing” with false narratives that are counterproductive to solutions. Day in and day out the same posters here come to leave a trail of total misinformation and destructive stereotyping - that, frankly, is well known to be a major contributor to violence against the homeless and a barrier to establishing programs to clean up the messes.

Your own posts don’t help. You have regurgitated sensationalist myths without knowing your topic. So, if you are concerned with “arguing”, why not start by either quiting the falacious commentaries ... or educating yourself with sufficient depth to add productive discourse?

[BB_210]

Day in and day out the same posters here come to leave a trail of total misinformation and destructive stereotyping - that, frankly, is well known to be a major contributor to violence against the homeless and a barrier to establishing programs to clean up the messes.

Lol

[k81689]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Except the “investigation” does NOT prove any such thing in any statistically significant measure ... if in ANY measure at all. This crap reporting attempts to address a crap industry ... but fails itself. The lead is that “destitute and homeless addicts” can be worth ... blah blah blah ... “hundreds of thousands of dollars “ ... blah blah ... with no validation as to who / what entities are paying those “hundreds of thousands”.

The reporting is correct that the rehab centers are basically scams. With less than 10% success rates. The reporting does absolutely nothing to identify its claims that homeless addicts are being funded by the state ... nor being “sent here” for that purpose.

Complete fail.

When you claimed Except the “investigation” does NOT prove any such thing in any statistically significant measure ... if in ANY measure at all. This crap reporting attempts to address a crap industry ... but fails itself., What was your arguments? What was your evidence? What was your proof? More claimed

It only show your claimed is much lower grade than OCregister.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by max210

Lol

I’m going to guess here that your “lol” refers to my comment that vilifying the homeless leads to violence against them - and generally defeats efforts to enable solutions to the problem.

You don’t strike me as a person who is willing to actually read much to learn about a topic ... but, perhaps you’ll read just a few paragraphs if I paste them right in your view?

No Safe Street: A Survey of Violence Committed against Homeless People a new report published by the National Coalition for the Homeless finds that over the last 17 years, at least 1,657 people experiencing homelessness have been the victims of violence perpetrated for the sole reason that they were unhoused at the time. This number includes 428 men and women who lost their lives for being homeless, and in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It is easy to see a correlation between the appearance of laws criminalizing homelessness, and the increase of hate crimes or violent acts against homeless people. A 2014 report from the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty found that out of 187 cities that have enacted some type of law criminalizing daily activities often carried out by people without stable housing, 21 cities were located in California (11%) and 17 were in Florida (9%). No Safe Street finds that out of 199 attacks against homeless persons in 2014-2015, the largest share of incidents took place in California (43 attacks) and Florida (18 attacks).

One possible explanation for this is the message that criminalizing homelessness sends to the general public: “Homeless people do not matter and are not worthy of living in our city.” This message is blatant in the attitudes many cities have toward homeless people and can be used as an internal justification for attacking someone.

No Safe Street cites more than double the number of fatalities from bias motivated violence against people who are homeless than the FBI has tracked for all federally protected classes combined. Professor of Criminal Justice at California State University San Bernardino, Brian Levin, finds that “the characteristics of bias attacks against the homeless are very similar to that of hate crime in general. As with other hate crimes, offenders fit a pattern: typically, young male “thrill offenders” acting on stereotypes, seeking excitement and peer validation.”
https://nationalhomeless.org/categor...-the-homeless/

So yeah, stereotyping of the kind you and others here engage in does contribute to incite violence.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by k81689

When you claimed Except the “investigation” does NOT prove any such thing in any statistically significant measure ... if in ANY measure at all. This crap reporting attempts to address a crap industry ... but fails itself., What was your arguments? What was your evidence? What was your proof? More claimed

It only show your claimed is much lower grade than OCregister.

Your question (if that’s what it is) is unclear. You’ll have to restate.

The first article raising the issue did a superficial job of reporting. The follow up article linked by 2sleepy was much better in identifying relative numbers and sources, if that’s what you were getting at.

[BB_210]

My lol is that you're dismissing an investigation that is just starting because it hasn't proven anything. And then call it a complete fail.

Nobody said this rehab thing is the sole source of homeless. Any logical person can discern it's a contributor, on a small or large scale.

I don't get the resistance and dismissive tone when they're looking into these issues.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by max210

My lol is that you're dismissing an investigation that is just starting because it hasn't proven anything. And then call it a complete fail.

Nobody said this rehab thing is the sole source of homeless. Any logical person can discern it's a contributor, on a small or large scale.

I don't get the resistance and dismissive tone when they're looking into these issues.

I see. Well, I’m not dismissive at all of investigating and cracking down on the faux industry. I have spoken against the “rehab” business for years.

What I am dismissive about is the notion (and reason the article was posted) that it is any measurable source of homeless being brought to and dumped in California.

1. Persons already homeless elsewhere are not recruited and shipped to California.

2. The rehab dropouts who subsequently become homeless are from both California and some from out of state.

The article did not report the numbers of non-Californians, yet presented its “findings” as evidence of trafficking as though this is a significant conduit for a growing problem.

It’s not. It sucks. It begs to be controlled. But the article is sensationalist journalism ... which sucks people in who are lazy intellectually and just gobble crap up that confirms their prejudices.

The scale on which it is a “contributor”, 50 or less out of 5000, isn’t significant to anything except feeding misplaced outrage.