homeless people making the sidewalk their home? (Santa Ana, Newport Beach: to live in, beach)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by majoun

Even under the terms of the court orders they could be moved to San Bernardino or Barstow by force, if there is shelter for them there. The court orders forbid LA from bothering them until more housing is available. If it is available in the desert or the IE, by all means they could be sent there. In such environments, with lower COLs, it would be much easier for them to escape homelessness.

You are absolutely wrong, without providing housing the City cannot make sleeping on the street a criminal offense but there is NOTHING in that agreement that allows forcible relocation of the homeless.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You are absolutely wrong, without providing housing the City cannot make sleeping on the street a criminal offense but there is NOTHING in that agreement that allows forcible relocation of the homeless.

Even if the situation reaches a breaking point? People in the city are getting fed up. It's not just in L.A, but surrounding parts of L.A county too.

Just because mindless 'tolerance' laws or policies that tolerate drug use , drinking in public, defecating and urinating in public are the current status quo doesn't mean that will be the way it is forever.

We've seen it throughout history, situations where politics change.

We aren't obligated to tolerate this until the end of time.

The constitution says absolutely nothing about tolerating people shooting up drugs, drinking in public, loitering, aggressive panhandling, sleeping on public streets or private property, etc etc

Anybody that has had to deal with this nonsense is against this.

The ones that are sheltered from it are the only ones that think it is acceptable.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

... it means that the City can't make sleeping on the street a criminal offense - very big difference there.

Fixed the typo ... sorry. Not everybody would have realized.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Even if the situation reaches a breaking point? People in the city are getting fed up. It's not just in L.A, but surrounding parts of L.A county too.

Just because mindless 'tolerance' laws or policies that tolerate drug use , drinking in public, defecating and urinating in public are the current status quo doesn't mean that will be the way it is forever.

We've seen it throughout history, situations where politics change.

We aren't obligated to tolerate this until the end of time.

The constitution says absolutely nothing about tolerating people shooting up drugs, drinking in public, loitering, aggressive panhandling, sleeping on public streets or private property, etc etc

Anybody that has had to deal with this nonsense is against this.

The ones that are sheltered from it are the only ones that think it is acceptable.

So jm, since you are upset about this public bad behavior, why do you oppose the only proven cost effective solutions?

Nevermind. Rhetorical question. Back to your "Ignore" feature.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Even if the situation reaches a breaking point? People in the city are getting fed up. It's not just in L.A, but surrounding parts of L.A county too.

Forced relocation is not allowed even if the situation reaches a breaking point.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Forced relocation is not allowed even if the situation reaches a breaking point.

You start getting real tough and people get the message.

Problem now is there is no real consequences.

People know what they can get away with and some will exploit the system to their advantage.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by jm1982

You start getting real tough and people get the message.

Problem now is there is no real consequences.

People know what they can get away with and some will exploit the system to their advantage.

You think people who live on the streets with nothing to lose are easily scared into behaving nice? Lmfao.

[jm1982]

We have no obligation to coddle anyone, despite what you believe .

And we know if you had a business that was losing money to do the homeless like many are you would change your tune real quick.

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by jm1982

You start getting real tough and people get the message.

Problem now is there is no real consequences.

People know what they can get away with and some will exploit the system to their advantage.

You're right, let's just take them out in the desert and shoot them in the head.

Than let's go into nursing homes and get rid of those sick old people.

How about the handicapped?

You know Jim, the police state you want in this country is well on it's way in case you haven't been paying attention.

As the saying goes "be careful what you wish for".

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by jm1982

We have no obligation to coddle anyone, despite what you believe .

And we know if you had a business that was losing money to do the homeless like many are you would change your tune real quick.

Are you reading my posts again, jm?

If I had a business being negatively affected by the homeless, I would do exactly what I am already doing: supporting efforts to develop Housing First options to clean up the streets most effectively for the least cost.

What I would NEVER do is advocate for a totalitarian state solution.