The Los Angeles Homeless Containment Thread (Santa Ana, Orange: neighborhoods, gated, camping)

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You "thought"? Why and how did you come to that conclusion, I certainly never said it and I don't recall you asking.

Maybe because of you defending or excusing the city’s policies for years .

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Maybe because of you defending or excusing the city’s policies for years .

That's not true and you know it. I have repeatedly criticized the failure of LA to provide adequate shelter space so that they could enforce anti-camping laws. Now Garcetti is talking about how they have enough shelter space that they can enforce anti-camping ordinances but he's lying, they still can't because the shelter space required to satisfy the Jones settlement was based on far fewer homeless than there are now, so if started arresting these people for sleeping in public it would result in another federal lawsuit and a settlement that could be worse than Jones.

There are no easy solutions, and it only makes sense to act within the parameters of what is legal, but that doesn't mean you do nothing. When Phoenix started enforcing anti-camping laws they realized that all the shelters were full so they couldn't arrest the people who were camping in public, so they let them stay in a parking lot. It's open from 6pm to 6am. It looks like the only amenities are porta potties and it's not pretty but it's a viable & legal short term solution that allows cops to enforce anti-camping laws.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...elter/2520403/

Crush of homeless overwhelming Phoenix shelter

[Exitus Acta Probat]

2sleepy, I have studies that state the opposite regarding prop 47:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/ar...s-12989137.php

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018...me-statistics/

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/st...mes-california

https://www.times-standard.com/2018/...47-study-says/

So here we are...

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

That's not true and you know it. I have repeatedly criticized the failure of LA to provide adequate shelter space so that they could enforce anti-camping laws. Now Garcetti is talking about how they have enough shelter space that they can enforce anti-camping ordinances but he's lying, they still can't because the shelter space required to satisfy the Jones settlement was based on far fewer homeless than there are now, so if started arresting these people for sleeping in public it would result in another federal lawsuit and a settlement that could be worse than Jones.

There are no easy solutions, and it only makes sense to act within the parameters of what is legal, but that doesn't mean you do nothing. When Phoenix started enforcing anti-camping laws they realized that all the shelters were full so they couldn't arrest the people who were camping in public, so they let them stay in a parking lot. It's open from 6pm to 6am. It looks like the only amenities are porta potties and it's not pretty but it's a viable & legal short term solution that allows cops to enforce anti-camping laws.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...elter/2520403/

Crush of homeless overwhelming Phoenix shelter

Stop saying "there are no easy solutions", when others and myself have been stating that we simply want the existing laws enforced. But alas, you and a few others continue to endorse exceptions to our existing laws and lament over the traditional solution I suggest, which is to simply use the existing loitering and trespassing laws to give homeless people the "bum's rush" and get them away from our neighborhoods where kids can't even be let out to play without their being exposed to creepy behavior.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

2sleepy, I have studies that state the opposite regarding prop 47:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/ar...s-12989137.php

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018...me-statistics/

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/st...mes-california

https://www.times-standard.com/2018/...47-study-says/

So here we are...

Good job finding those! A few takeaways. They are all based on the same study by PPIC. I think all but one mention the UC Irvine study that concluded that there was no increase in crime due to prop 47 because there was also an increase in property crime in states that did not have a similar law. The articles also mention that it appears that prop 47 has resulted in a lower recidivism rate; people convicted under prop 47 reoffend less frequently than offenders convicted of those crime before the passage of prop 47. I found an error in at least one article which claimed that there was an increase in auto theft which is NOT what the PPIC study found, they found an increase in "larceny thefts", but not specifically auto theft.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Stop saying "there are no easy solutions", when others and myself have been stating that we simply want the existing laws enforced. But alas, you and a few others continue to endorse exceptions to our existing laws and lament over the traditional solution I suggest, which is to simply use the existing loitering and trespassing laws to give homeless people the "bum's rush" and get them away from our neighborhoods where kids can't even be let out to play without their being exposed to creepy behavior.

And I keep saying that you can't enforce existing anti-camping laws until there is more shelter space available, do you really want to argue that? Trespassing on private property is enforced but if you call the cops about a guy sitting on your front lawn what do you want the cops to do when they arrive and he's gone, put out an Amber alert?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Stop saying "there are no easy solutions", when others and myself have been stating that we simply want the existing laws enforced. But alas, you and a few others continue to endorse exceptions to our existing laws and lament over the traditional solution I suggest, which is to simply use the existing loitering and trespassing laws to give homeless people the "bum's rush" and get them away from our neighborhoods where kids can't even be let out to play without their being exposed to creepy behavior.

Simple minds typically are attracted to what on the surface seem to be simple solutions. And no one here has “endorsed exceptions”. That is a weird thing to say. What are “exceptions”? What some of us do here is report what the laws do and do not allow. And then detail what will happen or what is required to follow the law or ignore it.

If the city provides enough space for homeless to sleep off the streets, then they can enforce. If they don’t they can’t without facing lawsuits. No one is endorsing this. Just informing you what your simple solutions require. We’re being helpful

Now then, once you provide the beds, you can then proceed to hire the extra LEO’s required to round up street sleepers by the thousands and herd them into shelters while still policing the rest of the city’s law enforment needs. And you can pay for the extra courts and judges and bailiffs and clerks and food and medical and .... well etc. that will be required.

2sleepy, CA4Now, and Tulemutt didn’t create these laws or economics ... let alone create the homeless crisis. All we are doing is providing you accurate information to work with in your quest. You’re welcome!

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Simple minds typically are attracted to what on the surface seem to be simple solutions.

You can't at least try to be civil? Sad...

[Teckeeee]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Stop saying "there are no easy solutions", when others and myself have been stating that we simply want the existing laws enforced. But alas, you and a few others continue to endorse exceptions to our existing laws and lament over the traditional solution I suggest, which is to simply use the existing loitering and trespassing laws to give homeless people the "bum's rush" and get them away from our neighborhoods where kids can't even be let out to play without their being exposed to creepy behavior.

Thank you for summing that up so succinctly

What about our rights? When does my right to walk the sidewalk without being accosted begin? What about your rights Exitus? We both pay a lot of taxes to live in Kalifornia and those taxes paid come with rights.

I have heard so many BS sob stories from these bums, clear them out, warehouse them if need be.

Yes I said it Warehouse them

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Teckeeee

Thank you for summing that up so succinctly

What about our rights? When does my right to walk the sidewalk without being accosted begin? What about your rights Exitus? We both pay a lot of taxes to live in Kalifornia and those taxes paid come with rights.

I have heard so many BS sob stories from these bums, clear them out, warehouse them if need be.

Yes I said it Warehouse them

So here we go again...we are going to entertain fantasies about 'warehousing' the homeless. Geezus