The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (Sacramento, Orange: commercial, largest, dancing)

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Then why aren't the homeless being served by that immense, collapsing system?

Can't sign up without a valid address?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Can't sign up without a valid address?

Most likely that's true

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

No, I'm making the point that the "problem" is fairly complex and isn't as solved as some have claimed. Large social problems are rarely "easy" fixes.

Yes. Exactly true.

However, you seem to delight in showcasing resistance to housing as a path to getting the streets cleared of the problem.

By the way, a “30% increase in Sacramento’s homeless” is not particularly dramatic given that it wasn’t a relatively large population to begin with. An increase of 1200 homeless over 2 year span, sad though it is, is not a knockout. If a population of a rural town goes from 9 to 12 persons - doesn’t sound so dramatic as a headline reading “Podunkville, Nebraska just outpaced the nation with a growth rate of 30%!” ... eh?

The real numbers are in L.A., S.F., and S.D. You should leave the faux drama of Sac alone probably.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

The only way to solve the problem is to have homeless people become financially and psychologically independent.

Everything else is just unlimited socialized welfare.

Interesting comment. A couple posts ago you acknowledged the complexity of the problem by virtue of its many facets of population and causes. Yet you now suggest they can all, or mostly, “become financially and psychologically independent?” A very sizable % can’t, as is quite obvious. Those who are the most visible aren’t going anywhere independently. Of course housing them is “socialized welfare.” How else could it be accomplished? Bake sales?

Unless you are going to kill them off you will have to either house them - or step over them and in their poop. Even if it were legal to round them up like cattle - as you have already said you don’t agree with (changing those laws to allow) - that’s also a “socialized” effort and expense ... one in greater measure.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Because there is no other explanation for your obsession with Sacramento

I trust your expertise on being able to identify obsession with certain places. Thank you.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

By the way, a “30% increase in Sacramento’s homeless” is not particularly dramatic given that it wasn’t a relatively large population to begin with. An increase of 1200 homeless over 2 year span, sad though it is, is not a knockout. If a population of a rural town goes from 9 to 12 persons - doesn’t sound so dramatic as a headline reading “Podunkville, Nebraska just outpaced the nation with a growth rate of 30%!” ... eh?

The real numbers are in L.A., S.F., and S.D. You should leave the faux drama of Sac alone probably.

Sacramento is a much smaller city than LA, SF, or SD, so of course its problem is numerically smaller, but Sacramento has a bad homeless problem and it's getting worse. Throwing more tax money at it has NOT worked to reduce the problem.

Yes. Exactly true.

However, you seem to delight in showcasing resistance to housing as a path to getting the streets cleared of the problem.

Delight? Really?

My only resistence to "housing" as a path is how will it be paid for? No one ever talks about costs, and when they do it always involves more taxes on top of the hundreds of millions of additional taxes already approved to "solve" the problem last time.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Interesting comment. A couple posts ago you acknowledged the complexity of the problem by virtue of its many facets of population and causes. Yet you now suggest they can all, or mostly, “become financially and psychologically independent?” A very sizable % can’t, as is quite obvious. Those who are the most visible aren’t going anywhere independently. Of course housing them is “socialized welfare.” How else could it be accomplished? Bake sales?

Yes, and there was supposed to be a system, extremely immense and supposedly well funded that was supposed to take care of them. A huge socialized system run by the government.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

My only resistence to "housing" as a path is how will it be paid for? No one ever talks about costs, and when they do it always involves more taxes on top of the hundreds of millions of additional taxes already approved to "solve" the problem last time.

“No one ever talks about costs” ... um WHAT? EVERYONE has been talking about costs. Those who oppose rant and rail about how housing will cost SO much! ... and how they’re not gonna pay for it!

And when the few who bother to study the costs of various succusful housing projects report savings of 20% - 50% over the costs of dealing with the homeless left on the streets ... uh, well, the topic-educated are ridiculed by the shouters with their hair on fire ... and the street corner shouting continues.

Meh ... it’s your money already being spent now in unnecessary amounts ... too damn funny ...

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Yes, and there was supposed to be a system, extremely immense and supposedly well funded that was supposed to take care of them. A huge socialized system run by the government.

And? So just stop funding the problem and it will resolve itself? The shizophrenics will be healed. The addicted will turn to Jesus and repent with organic diets and twice-daily meditation? Chump will bring back manufacturing for the untrained unemployed and we’ll all be in hunky-dory land like the good old days again?

Or get supportive of housing first programs and get the garbage off the damn streets ... your call.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

And? So just stop funding the problem and it will resolve itself? The shizophrenics will be healed. The addicted will turn to Jesus and repent with organic diets and twice-daily meditation? Chump will bring back manufacturing for the untrained unemployed and we’ll all be in hunky-dory land like the good old days again?

Or get supportive of housing first programs and get the garbage off the damn streets ... your call.

Uh people have been suggesting housing in this thread for many, many pages (I know you haven't been here for a while ).

The problem isn't "housing", most agree on that, the problem is where? Those who actually understand how an economy works have suggested very logical solutions for housing in areas where it could be built cheaply.

Others who don't understand how money and markets work think you can start housing tens of thousands of homeless in an area where the average 2/1 condo costs $1.2 million.