The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (San Diego, San Francisco: commute to, full, different)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

And before we do that, we need a solid definition of homelessness. It should include a baseline residency requirement.

What do you mean 'baseline residency requirement'? It doesn't matter if they've been homeless for an hour or 40 years, you can't condition assistance or other benefits based upon length of residency. Go read Saenz v Roe 1999, Shapiro v Thompson 1968 and Zobel v Williams 1982.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

I do not agree with you that it should be overlooked and I will not "get over it" as you wrote.

lol. Yeah, we can see that ...

Well, rephrase: let’s see where your personal opinion gets you over time ... meanwhile, credible, professional surveys and research go forward in absence of credible disproval.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

What do you mean 'baseline residency requirement'? It doesn't matter if they've been homeless for an hour or 40 years, you can't condition assistance or other benefits based upon length of residency. Go read Saenz v Roe 1999, Shapiro v Thompson 1968 and Zobel v Williams 1982.

Thanks Sleepy. I was unaware of this line of cases. I will have to shepardize them when I have time. I read each one, but not to completion. Assuming none have been overturned, I am now more convinced than ever NOT to ever provide permanent housing to the homeless in California lest we get even more flooded with culturally enriching homeless.

It's either the [temporary] camps or nothing at all.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Thanks Sleepy. I was unaware of this line of cases. I will have to shepardize them when I have time. I read each one, but not to completion. Assuming none have been overturned, I am now more convinced than ever NOT to ever provide permanent housing to the homeless in California lest we get even more flooded with culturally enriching homeless.

It's either the [temporary] camps or nothing at all.

they've not been overturned, but it's legal to attach conditions to transitional or permanent housing that do not conflict with those rulings. I've mentioned this before, in Sacramento there is about an 18 month - 2 year path to permanent housing and for those who complete all the requirements very few actually end up in permanent housing.

It usually goes like this, to get on a waitlist for transitional housing the person has to have been confirmed as homeless by an outreach worker who has been in contact with them for at least 30 days, they are also required to accept temporary shelter if available during that time. The next step is a waitlist for transitional housing. To get on that list there is usually a requirement of 6 months of sobriety which has to be supported by drug testing, that's usually accomplished by placement in a sober living house.

Acceptance into transitional housing requires acceptance of any and all services offered including job training, mental health treatment etc. After a year of so in transitional housing they are eligible for permanent housing which in Sacramento usually means a section 8 voucher but the joy of receiving that voucher is usually short lived because almost no landlords in Sac accept section 8 and the homeless person with the voucher has to pay their own deposit. https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/ho...217887805.html

All those rules and regulations usually make conservatives very happy but the bottom line is that the seriously mentally ill and serial inebriates never even get on the list of transitional housing so the problem with tents on sidewalks and drunks throwing stuff at passing cars gets worse every day.

No city can afford to house every homeless person so they choose one of two paths: Get the worst of the worst off the streets, or do what Sacramento is doing- help the ones who have the best chance of turning their lives around and ignore those who aren't 'salvageable' But the failure of the Sacramento model is that even the homeless who comply with all the rules are still homeless with a useless housing voucher.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Thanks Sleepy. I was unaware of this line of cases. I will have to shepardize them when I have time. I read each one, but not to completion. Assuming none have been overturned, I am now more convinced than ever NOT to ever provide permanent housing to the homeless in California lest we get even more flooded with culturally enriching homeless.

It's either the [temporary] camps or nothing at all.

Fine. We’ll remember your position as you ceaselessly fume and kvetch about stepping over them and their messes on your streets.

[CA4Now]

The first temporary bridge housing site opened. The residents were chosen from among the homeless already living on streets in the area.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...492914581.html

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Remember, folks, there are people who don't live anywhere near Los Angeles who post in this thread. They have no idea what it's like to live here, yet they have a pathological compulsion to tell the rest of how we should live with the mentally deranged people infesting our streets. Grist for their trolling just encourages them to return and continue to indulge their pathology and there's nothing wrong with simply ignoring them -- in fact, doing so will make you the superior human being.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Remember, folks, there are people who don't live anywhere near Los Angeles who post in this thread. They have no idea what it's like to live here, yet they have a pathological compulsion to tell the rest of how we should live with the mentally deranged people infesting our streets. Grist for their trolling just encourages them to return and continue to indulge their pathology and there's nothing wrong with simply ignoring them -- in fact, doing so will make you the superior human being.

You should definitely report those people to a moderator post haste!

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Remember, folks, there are people who don't live anywhere near Los Angeles who post in this thread. They have no idea what it's like to live here, yet they have a pathological compulsion to tell the rest of how we should live with the mentally deranged people infesting our streets. Grist for their trolling just encourages them to return and continue to indulge their pathology and there's nothing wrong with simply ignoring them -- in fact, doing so will make you the superior human being.

Preach it brotha

[jm1982]

LA Times just did one of those photo article things on homeless

Lots of truth in this comment ...

“Every one of them could be productive in some way. Most (like 95% of them) are in the position they are due to pad choices: drugs, alcohol, lack of training, choosing "partying" over responsibility. I wonder how many of them would accept room and board in return for work and sobriety.”

Face to face with the homeless