Los Angeles is city of Homeless (San Fernando: centers, public transportation, suburban)

[NyWriterdude]

And some of the mentally ill homeless will permanently need to live in some sort of supervised housing. Fortunately California and LA are finally allocating money towards dealing with the problem.

[V8 Vega]

Why work when you can get everything for free from the stupid Calif. taxpayers.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

And some of the mentally ill homeless will permanently need to live in some sort of supervised housing. Fortunately California and LA are finally allocating money towards dealing with the problem.

It looks like the politicians are planning to raise our taxes to get that money too.
Asking voters to OK homeless funding would take L.A. into uncharted waters - LA Times

Not a surprise really.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Exactly. This is why it's dumb when people say it's a victimless crime. When someone gets caught for cocaine, heroin,etc and is a heavy user of those drugs there is typically a pattern.
Just as an example, I know a guy that has a brother with a drug problem and heard he recently pulled a gun on his mother. Drug users/junkies are the ones that are usually stripping houses of copper, etc.
This is an example of how desperate drug addicts can get
It's just a bad downward spiral and letting these types roam around just to commit more crimes is not good.
Before they get caught , they probably commit a bunch of crimes they got away with too.

No one is denying that. The issue with prop 47 is that it did not 'decriminalize' anything, it reduced some non violent,non serious crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. It is up to local police agencies to decide whether to book a person for a misdemeanor or write them a citation. Los Angeles made a very foolish decision when they opted to only write tickets for people who are arrested for misdemeanors.

But even with that, there is an upside to prop 47 in LA county. For the past decade inmates sentenced for serious offenses in LA have been released after serving 10% of their sentence and that has changed: Inmates with county sentences for burglary, theft, DUI and the like are now serving 90% of their terms, whereas men had been serving 20% and women serving 10%. Those convicted of more serious offenses such as child molestation or assault with a deadly weapon are now serving 100% of their terms, compared with 40% previously.

The management of criminal offenders is complex, almost any change in a law is met with criticism. If you are going to lock up everyone up who breaks the law for long periods, you need to spend far more on building prisons and jails than we are now and it is unlikely that the public is in any mood to agree to pay for it. In my opinion prison should be reserved for the worst of the worst, offenders who are violent and pose an immediate threat to public safety if released. But drug offenders and petty thieves, those people don't scare us, they just make us damn mad and they should be managed in a different way, through jail terms and conditional release with monitoring and supervision.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

Why work when you can get everything for free from the stupid Calif. taxpayers.

That's interesting, why don't you quit working and then come back and give us a report on all the 'free stuff' you got from California? The fact is that adults without children who are not elderly or disabled, are ineligible for welfare and they can only receive food stamp benefits for 3 months every 3 years. If they applied for a housing voucher, they would be pushed to the bottom of the list and would never receive one. They would receive medi-cal but that's about it.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by jm1982

It looks like the politicians are planning to raise our taxes to get that money too.
Asking voters to OK homeless funding would take L.A. into uncharted waters - LA Times

Not a surprise really.

So you want these people executed by the government?

Because basically in order to get help public safety these people need treatment and help. Solving the homeless problem in LA is going to cost MONEY.

It's for the public benefit not just in terms of safety, but from a public health viewpoint you really don't want sick and dying people lying around.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

That's interesting, why don't you quit working and then come back and give us a report on all the 'free stuff' you got from California? The fact is that adults without children who are not elderly or disabled, are ineligible for welfare and they can only receive food stamp benefits for 3 months every 3 years. If they applied for a housing voucher, they would be pushed to the bottom of the list and would never receive one. They would receive medi-cal but that's about it.

If they do apply for Section 8 getting that (if it happens) can take TEN or more YEARS.

Disabled or elderly people can be put ahead of the list and are more likely to get housing in a reasonable time period.

But the problem with long term homelessness is in the past when they could not even get med-cal, be homeless long enough and you will end up sick with all sorts of things and disabled. Letting them lie around in the streets until they rot in the long run is more costly (prison and the criminal justice system is costly).

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

No one is denying that. The issue with prop 47 is that it did not 'decriminalize' anything, it reduced some non violent,non serious crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. It is up to local police agencies to decide whether to book a person for a misdemeanor or write them a citation. Los Angeles made a very foolish decision when they opted to only write tickets for people who are arrested for misdemeanors.

But even with that, there is an upside to prop 47 in LA county. For the past decade inmates sentenced for serious offenses in LA have been released after serving 10% of their sentence and that has changed: Inmates with county sentences for burglary, theft, DUI and the like are now serving 90% of their terms, whereas men had been serving 20% and women serving 10%. Those convicted of more serious offenses such as child molestation or assault with a deadly weapon are now serving 100% of their terms, compared with 40% previously.

The management of criminal offenders is complex, almost any change in a law is met with criticism. If you are going to lock up everyone up who breaks the law for long periods, you need to spend far more on building prisons and jails than we are now and it is unlikely that the public is in any mood to agree to pay for it. In my opinion prison should be reserved for the worst of the worst, offenders who are violent and pose an immediate threat to public safety if released. But drug offenders and petty thieves, those people don't scare us, they just make us damn mad and they should be managed in a different way, through jail terms and conditional release with monitoring and supervision.

Prison was rare in the early colonial period and even until the 1800s. Serious offenders got the death penalty. Lesser offenders got fined, flogged, or otherwise punished. Locking up people in prison was expensive and took a lot of resources and the societies then would have seen mass incarceration as a waste of resources.

As for the lower level offenders, in addition to monitoring and supervision they often need mental health services, education, etc. Once helped to become a more functional person their chances of returning to those behaviors are a lot less.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

If they do apply for Section 8 getting that (if it happens) can take TEN or more YEARS. Disabled or elderly people can be put ahead of the list and are more likely to get housing in a reasonable time period. But the problem with long term homelessness is in the past when they could not even get med-cal, be homeless long enough and you will end up sick with all sorts of things and disabled. Letting them lie around in the streets until they rot in the long run is more costly (prison and the criminal justice system is costly).

You nailed it, and even with medi-cal unless services are delivered to them, they are unlikely to take a bus across town to get follow up care. That's a real pervasive problem with the homeless population who have mental health issues, there is no one to check for compliance with their medication or to provide refills when they run out so they end up having a psychotic episode and end up in jail or with yet another prescription that will in all likelihood never get filled. Supportive housing is the only solution, it's just that it's a tough sell when so many people have a mind set that all social welfare programs are evil and unnecessary.

[owl6969]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You nailed it, and even with medi-cal unless services are delivered to them, they are unlikely to take a bus across town to get follow up care.

Not so much in places like skid row etc.