The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (Bell Gardens, Bell: associations, brick, licensing)

[jm1982]

Article from LA Times editorial board about these new emergency shelters .

—

“But the bridge shelters are costing far more than the city’s initial rough estimate of about $13,000 per bed. The El Pueblo shelter cost four times that much, coming in at $2.4 million. The next one — expected to open in Hollywood in January — will probably cost $3 million to construct. City officials now hope to set aside $75 million — or $50,000 per bed — for the shelters, which city officials have pledged will be removed after three years”

What's the endgame for Eric Garcetti's homeless shelters?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

I'm just trying to understand what we're talking about.
"Short-Term" and "Permanent" can refer to:
a) the tents,
b) the people in the tents
c) or both
A "short term" tent in my mind is analogous to a short term halloween lot with pumpkins or a short term Christmas tree lot. It is there for a while, then it is gone.
A "permanent" tent is like this:
or this:

Huh? The tents are considered semi-permanent, that refers to the tent itself not the inhabitants. I don't know how long they last, probably a long time but since they are not a traditional structure built on a foundation they can't really be considered permanent.

The people might be in a tent for a month or a year, what difference does it make, they are 'bridge housing' and fill the gap between nightly shelters and housing.

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2018/mar/0...nent-housing-/

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

1. Lived in San Berdoo years back, so yeah, knows people live there

Ah, yes, San Berdoo. My home town. If God decided the world needed an enema, He would surely select San Bernardino for the point of application.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by jm1982

The real motivation of “homeles advocates “

From article above ..

“The Southern California News Group investigation found that destitute and homeless addicts can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to unscrupulous rehab centers, where those addicts often are bought, sold and exploited for their insurance payments. The addiction industry is rife with kickbacks, drug use and fraud that bleeds millions from insurers’ and private pockets.“

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

These rehabs are scammers and it's the parents who will end up paying $5,000-$15,000 in co-pays and deductibles.

The above is one example of why I'm in favor of the death penalty. Not for the homeless addicts - but for the owners/operators employees of the unscrupulous rehab centers.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Huh? The tents are considered semi-permanent, that refers to the tent itself not the inhabitants. I don't know how long they last, probably a long time but since they are not a traditional structure built on a foundation they can't really be considered permanent.

OK. I understand now. Thanks.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

The above is one example of why I'm in favor of the death penalty. Not for the homeless addicts - but for the owners/operators employees of the unscrupulous rehab centers.

I'm opposed to the death penalty but I would have no problem in a prolonged torture session for the people who run those scam operations.

[CA4Now]

Members of the LAPD’s homeless outreach team as well as the RESET Unit, which serves skid row’s homeless population, have been visiting homeless encampments since Sunday to warn the community about the potential predator, Central Division Capt. Marc Reina said.

Three homeless men in critical condition after baseball bat attacks in downtown L.A.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I'm opposed to the death penalty but I would have no problem in a prolonged torture session for the people who run those scam operations.

Nice regressive logic: opposition to the death penalty b/c cruel and unusual but torturing scam artists is ok. The difference, of course, is that regressives love people eligible for the death penalty because most are thugs. Thugs are seen as victims themselves by the same regressives. Those making money scamming the system are the ones truly worthy of the death penalty bc they make money.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Nice regressive logic: opposition to the death penalty b/c cruel and unusual but torturing scam artists is ok. The difference, of course, is that regressives love people eligible for the death penalty because most are thugs. Thugs are seen as victims themselves by the same regressives. Those making money scamming the system are the ones truly worthy of the death penalty bc they make money.

“The thugs can’t help themselves . Their race made them commit the time . They grew up in a bad neighborhood what else could they do besides be thugs ? We need to stop putting people in prison for being criminals because it’s just not fair ..”

[Tulemutt]

Ah. What better place than an anonymous internet forum thread on homelessness - to ignore ramifications of assumptions of guilt?

Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated. As a percentage of all death sentences, that's just 1.6 percent. But if the innocence rate is 4.1 percent, more than twice the rate of exoneration, the study suggests what most people assumed but dreaded: An untold number of innocent people have been executed. Further, the majority of those wrongfully sentenced to death are likely to languish in prison and never be freed.

https://www.newsweek.com/one-25-exec...-claims-248889