Mayor: San Diego will step up enforcement on homeless (apartment, camper)

[phinneas j. whoopee]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Nobody is "street racing" downtown. That's an E and N County thing. Maybe parts of E S Bay.

I didnt say they were. My statement began with "police departments all over."
If youve got a half dozen cops rousting homeless people thats a half dozen cops you cant assign to stop street racing.

If I was looking for a place to go drag racing Id think sorrento valley or miramar/mira mesa industrial parks.

You know what I meant. Another example would be that gang of skateboarders that beat the guy senseless in balboa park. People are getting away with that **** because police resources are stretched too thin as it is.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by phinneas j. whoopee

Do you think herding them into concentration camp like compounds on black asphalt pavement in the hottest months of summer is humane treatment?
As for its constitutionality, what the lawyers really do is take the laws that have been struck down, twist the wording around, then hope the ACLU is too busy to drag the new law back into court again.

Comparing safe sleeping parking lots to concentration camps is ridiculous. These are not locked down, forced labor camps. I was downtown yesterday, it was like 78°, and it's certainly not hot at night. So I don't think anyone is being treated inhumanely as long as the weather conditions are not unusually hot. If the location reflects too much heat in the long run, then they can look for another site that has more shade. Weather is not a reason to abandon ideology.

I don't understand the appeal of keeping people dispersed, vulnerable, invisible, addicted, and without mental health services. Why would you want to keep people down, when they're not capable of helping themselves? They need a hand to pull them up. Letting people camp all over the streets is not normal or humane, so we've got to start somewhere.

Our case law system is meant to be tested. Just because one law goes too far doesn't mean another automatically does. I'm sure they will bring this to court, and it will be interesting to see what happens. In the meantime we'll have data to see if this idea works. There's a lot of trial and error in preventing and reducing homelessness, and we should applaud people who try to help over those who are fine with the status quo.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by phinneas j. whoopee

I didnt say they were. My statement began with "police departments all over."
If youve got a half dozen cops rousting homeless people thats a half dozen cops you cant assign to stop street racing.

If I was looking for a place to go drag racing Id think sorrento valley or miramar/mira mesa industrial parks.

You know what I meant. Another example would be that gang of skateboarders that beat the guy senseless in balboa park. People are getting away with that **** because police resources are stretched too thin as it is.

During and after covid the cops weren't even allowed to patrol. They left the station when and only when there was a call. Only in the last 6 months or so have we even seen something that appears normal like a cop sitting at a 4 way that everyone runs or a cop with a radar gun. This goes with HP, SDPD and even SD Sheriff.

There was a shooting at Mesa a few days ago and there were at least 40 police vehicles there for two days.


During the 80-90s in SDPD you had incentive to get to work early because you could pick your cruiser. If you were late you got the beach sweep van. That means you get to go pick up drunk and high vagrants and haul them downtown. Great fun those days. Nothing like going home smelling like ammonia from a transient that was trying to spit and **** on you the whole time you were just doing your job.

Though the population has doubled the "homeless" population was a fraction of now when SDPD had to do this.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by phinneas j. whoopee

I never said the status quo is the preferred path...

You don't have to come right out and say it, it's more than implied in your fear-mongering posts. You think asking homeless people to move their sidewalk campsites two blocks away from schools or shelters is akin to the Third Reich. I don't exactly have to jump very far to conclude you prefer things remain how they are.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by phinneas j. whoopee

I didnt say they were. My statement began with "police departments all over."
If youve got a half dozen cops rousting homeless people thats a half dozen cops you cant assign to stop street racing.

If I was looking for a place to go drag racing Id think sorrento valley or miramar/mira mesa industrial parks.

You know what I meant. Another example would be that gang of skateboarders that beat the guy senseless in balboa park. People are getting away with that **** because police resources are stretched too thin as it is.

Your examples get dumber as you go.
You realize that SDPD dispatches available officers based on priority (severity) of the call, not in line order, right? And you should realize that even if police are tied up on one call, they can leave to a higher priority one (and do) at any time.



And all of that is really beside the point because the latest change to the ordinance tries everything to avoid sending the police to make those contacts in the first place.

[considerforamoment]

I don't get where the idea came from to camp on sidewalks. It's so weird. Like, if you want to camp, go to the mountains or something. Why would anyone "decide" to set up permanent residence on a sidewalk? I mean they have tents and supplies, so it's not like they are just random drug addicts with nothing. What goes on in their heads to think that living on a sidewalk is the way to go? I don't get it.

And in some of the pics I've seen, the sidewalk campers are not only blocking people from using the sidewalk, some of them are creating fire hazards right in front of other people's front doors (SF). What are they thinking?????????????????? There should be no tolerance for sidewalk camping - it shouldn't even be a thing.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by considerforamoment

I don't get where the idea came from to camp on sidewalks. It's so weird. Like, if you want to camp, go to the mountains or something. Why would anyone "decide" to set up permanent residence on a sidewalk? I mean they have tents and supplies, so it's not like they are just random drug addicts with nothing. What goes on in their heads to think that living on a sidewalk is the way to go? I don't get it.

And in some of the pics I've seen, the sidewalk campers are not only blocking people from using the sidewalk, some of them are creating fire hazards right in front of other people's front doors (SF). What are they thinking?????????????????? There should be no tolerance for sidewalk camping - it shouldn't even be a thing.

Welcome to California

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Welcome to California

… and to Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Arizona, Florida, Washington D.C., …. Jakarta, Damascus, San Paulo, Vancouver BC, New Delhi, Budapest, Rome, Lisbon, Lagos, Kanpur, Manila ………. all around the world.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by considerforamoment

Why would anyone "decide" to set up permanent residence on a sidewalk?

Because it's a passive aggressive move that says "I don't have a place to go (except for empty shelter beds, of course) therefore everyone has to deal with my presence, my trash, my **** all over the place because this is now my home!". And if you dare question the behavior, a minority of do-gooders and enablers like a couple of posters here, will call you "mean" and "privileged" for it.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Uh-huh.
Here's all the things you signed on for when you proverbially thumbs-upped that post:



1. That jails will be too full to make arrests (which isn't the purpose nor priority of the ordinance but whatever).
2. That six of ten police officers on a shift in DT will spend all their time rousting the homeless, particularly Fridays

3. That crime will go "off the charts" because criminals will capitalize on slow response times.
4. That retail theft and street racing thrive in this environment because of point #2 in the list.
5. That *I* personally don't like looking at homeless people.
6. That the ordinance is headed for Federal court (ignoring the fact it was vetted against all previous lawsuit settlements)

7. That arrests will be unconstitutional.
8. Something about forced mental health holds and drug treatment (which the ordinance doesn't even touch).
9. That you're amused with "toothless blustering and condemnation of heartless people with priveleged {sic} lives"

10. That you're "annoyed by the crazy and violent ones"
11. That nobody hires men between 45 and 65.
12. And that at a certain point they all quit life, like the poster admits themself.


That's what you latched onto when you said "Heh. Exactly so".
And all that said, the poster obviously doesn't agree with the ordinance which would mean by default the alternative which would be keeping status quo policy, and by extension you agree with that too. And by agreeing to that, you're ok with people sleeping in tents on the streets.

Ridiculous paraphrasing. Ridiculous assertions of “default alternatives”, as if everything about homelessness is somehow black and white binary.

All the issues addressed have histories of complex and multi-faceted opinions, studies, and programs to execute.

I do agree with point #10, though … I am annoyed by “the crazy and violent ones” just like everyone else.