The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (Lancaster, Barstow: post office, fire department, Starbucks)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by jm1982

A decision from the 9th circuit court . A known liberal court .

So we can ignore the ruling? Can I ignore Appellate Court rulings that come out of conservative courts?

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

For all the good it did... the following is from 11/2017: https://www.dailynews.com/2017/11/08...oposition-hhh/

It shows the red tape they need to go through to make any progress: (Sept 2018): L.A. council members make uneven progress on homeless housing

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Great, then build some huts

Who said anything about huts? I've never said anything about huts.

The current documented, professionally estimated plan is to spend $900 Million on 2,700 housing units. That's 333,333 for each unit. That isn't a hut.

The document you mosted https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...essreport.html says there are approximately 23,000 homeless at any given point in time. That's a city.

At 333,333 per unit -- the official plan -- that's $7.67 BILLION. That isn't huts. Pull up a spreadsheet and calculate the twice-yearly bond payments. Also estimate how much the operating costs will be.

You, on the other hand, have proposed parking lots for 23,000 homeless souls.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

in Blythe

Who said anything about Blythe? I never said anything about Blythe.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

especially when they find out that the 'housing' is transitional and will only be available to them for 3-6 months

Who said anything about being transitional and only available for 3-6 months? There is every expectation this a permanent housing.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I will admit, all I have is anecdotal evidence from over two decades working in law enforcement and also from doing volunteer work with homeless women with children for many years.

Yes, it is clear you've never held a senior position in the private sector where you must produce, you know, results.

[TCROX]

jm the 9th is also the MOST OVERTURNED circuit EVER... lots of great stuff going on to help us restore law and order and more than likely a bigger and better new state hospital system with private and federal involvement.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Yes, it is clear you've never held a senior office in the private sector where you must produce, you know, results.

It certainly beats the posters on this thread who have ZERO experience with the homeless, view them as substandard human beings, and simply want them gone.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Why go after me? Read what I said. They do not have to go where you decide they should. Of course a shelter can be a block away, it can probably be 30 minutes away from where they are, it just has to be reasonable or the court will not allow them to be arrested for sleeping in public. That's not my opinion it's the courts so why attack me for saying it?

A police officer in a northern california county told me that they have a network of churches which will provide emergency shelter if the local shelter is full so basically they always have a bed to offer a homeless person. Because they are able to do that they can arrest people who refuse shelter and sleep in a public place.

If LA could offer a shelter bed to every homeless person sleeping on the street they could arrest them if they refuse, what they can't do is offer a shelter bed in Bakersfield and then arrest people for refusing a bus ticket to Kern County

Well, Lancaster is in LA County. Problem solved.

[TCROX]

Yep - that's the way its shaping up- thankfully... vagrants and mentally ill away from harm and temptation and in where than can get services, safety and hope -- and for a fraction of what the pro-crime, pro-homelessness advocates are drooling over.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Well, Lancaster is in LA County. Problem solved.

Perfect! I'm sure the residents of Lancaster will love it and the homeless in LA will gladly pack up and travel 70 miles to their new digs

[TCROX]

yep- lots of economic opportunities for the locals - the lifelong criminal vagrants, other vagrants and the mentally ill will have life long structure and supervision if they can't generate and sort of self sufficiency.. that's the way life is.. in a humane and orderly democracy...they have made their choices or are unable to make choices, so the good people of the US will help them the way we used to pre- aclu....choices have consequences...good and bad...that's just the way life is in a non-nanny state. that's just the way life really is... we'll be glad to help them move into their nice new domiciles... heck as more and more facilities spring up ...more and more opportunities will arise... again that's the way life is..

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Who said anything about huts? I've never said anything about huts.

The current documented, professionally estimated plan is to spend $900 Million on 2,700 housing units. That's 333,333 for each unit. That isn't a hut.

The document you mosted https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...essreport.html says there are approximately 23,000 homeless at any given point in time. That's a city.

At 333,333 per unit -- the official plan -- that's $7.67 BILLION. That isn't huts. Pull up a spreadsheet and calculate the twice-yearly bond payments. Also estimate how much the operating costs will be.

You, on the other hand, have proposed parking lots for 23,000 homeless souls.
.

I haven’t read any suggestion here from anybody to set aside parking lots for 23,000 homeless souls. Where did you get that, Sport?

What I have read, and posted myself, is that parking for homeless to live in cars and rv’s can be one of many venues in a multi-pronged approach to managing part of the homeless disaster.

I have also read Sleepy, myself, and others here agreeing that units costing hundred’s of thousands are mostly ridiculous at simplistic face value ... but not necessarily ridiculous if factored over time and multi-occupancy uses, and including management service centers beyond unit occupancy.

Several of us have pointed repeatedly to multi-venue solutions that are nowhere near any hundred’s of thousands $ per unit ... yet you keep going back to using extreme case scenarios to argue impossibilities of financing. Why?

You have agreed that the problems are reaching crisis proportion and something should and needs to be done. Yet when contributors here who have worked directly with homeless and related benefits bring ideas to the discussion, you go again and again back to the “$333,333” deep well. Why?