California Doing California Things

[TSwizzle]

*sigh* pay attention, the link is to the “CA Post”. You are obviously not aware that earlier this year the NY Post publishes a California version.

Clearly not. {snip}

Dry your eyes and move along.

 

[TSwizzle]

In the fourth largest economy in the world

Three people were shot on Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles on Thursday after a gunman delivered a chilling message, saying, "This is where I do business," before opening fire. The shooting has left the community on edge, as the suspect remains at large. Skid Row, known for its dense homeless population, stretches across approximately 50 blocks in Los Angeles.

News

50 blocks where people live in squalor. Hard to believe this would be allowed.

 

[Politesse]

Some asshole goes and ineptly commits an attempted mass killing in a poor neighborhood, and TSwizzle thinks the crime is that people are "allowed" to live there. Wild.

50 blocks where people live in squalor. Hard to believe this would be allowed.

 

[WAB]

Some asshole goes and ineptly commits an attempted mass killing in a poor neighborhood, and TSwizzle thinks the crime is that people are "allowed" to live there. Wild.

50 blocks where people live in squalor. Hard to believe this would be allowed.

Well, the squalor affects his aim. Poor murderer.

 

[Politesse]

But yes, the fourth largest economy in the world is exactly where you would look, if you were looking for a large homeless population. Truly wealthy people don't earn their keep, they use the instruments of bank, state, school, and prison to steal it from whoever cannot defend themselves.

 

[TSwizzle]

Some asshole goes and ineptly commits an attempted mass killing in a poor neighborhood, and TSwizzle thinks the crime is that people are "allowed" to live there. Wild.

This is not a "poor neighborhood". This is 50 blocks of people living (if you can even call it that) on the sidewalk of a major US city in the fourth largest economy in the world. It's basically an open air psychiatric ward.

You are shameless, comfortable to see this inhuman treatment.

 

[ZiprHead]

Some asshole goes and ineptly commits an attempted mass killing in a poor neighborhood, and TSwizzle thinks the crime is that people are "allowed" to live there. Wild.

This is not a "poor neighborhood". This is 50 blocks of people living (if you can even call it that) on the sidewalk of a major US city in the fourth largest economy in the world. It's basically an open air psychiatric ward.

You are shameless, comfortable to see this inhuman treatment.

You know what would fix this. Tax revenue to create housing and provide mental health treatment. But that is anathema to your side.

 

[Politesse]

Some asshole goes and ineptlyComfortable? commits an attempted mass killing in a poor neighborhood, and TSwizzle thinks the crime is that people are "allowed" to live there. Wild.

This is not a "poor neighborhood". This is 50 blocks of people living (if you can even call it that) on the sidewalk of a major US city in the fourth largest economy in the world. It's basically an open air psychiatric ward.

You are shameless, comfortable to see this inhuman treatment.

Comfortable? Shameless? You're insulting and degrading human beings who are in a desperate situation, while also opposing any and all efforts to help them, and I'm shameless? Go wash your mouth out with soap.

 

[TSwizzle]

Some asshole goes and ineptlyComfortable? commits an attempted mass killing in a poor neighborhood, and TSwizzle thinks the crime is that people are "allowed" to live there. Wild.

This is not a "poor neighborhood". This is 50 blocks of people living (if you can even call it that) on the sidewalk of a major US city in the fourth largest economy in the world. It's basically an open air psychiatric ward.

You are shameless, comfortable to see this inhuman treatment.

Comfortable? Shameless? You're insulting and degrading human beings who are in a desperate situation, while also opposing any and all efforts to help them, and I'm shameless? Go wash your mouth out with soap.

Sure, Jan.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Some asshole goes and ineptly commits an attempted mass killing in a poor neighborhood, and TSwizzle thinks the crime is that people are "allowed" to live there. Wild.

This is not a "poor neighborhood". This is 50 blocks of people living (if you can even call it that) on the sidewalk of a major US city in the fourth largest economy in the world. It's basically an open air psychiatric ward.

You are shameless, comfortable to see this inhuman treatment.

You know what would fix this. Tax revenue to create housing and provide mental health treatment. But that is anathema to your side.

You can throw billions and billions of dollars at the problem and it wouldn't be enough.

One example are the 5150 holds that you can place people on. They last for about 3 days. A 5250 can hold a person for about two weeks. If they're considered an ongoing risk, they may be held for up to six months, but those are rare because all the above are people are there involuntarily. After that, they have to be released barring X incidents while being held. Also, professionals are required to evaluate them to determine if they pose a threat to themselves or others, but at some point they will be released whether they're ready or not because there's enormous pressure to get people out so that others can be brought in.

In addition, detaining these people has to be justified, and even then it flirts with due process violations. It's also noteworthy that most people held for the above described holds aren't homeless to begin with. Thus, new laws at the federal level designed to specifically get homeless off the streets that currently would be in violation of basic Constitutional rights would have to be made.

There are ~70,000 homeless people in L.A. county alone. It's estimated that there are over 150,000 homeless people in California in total. For comparison, California state prisons combined contain ~90,000 inmates at any given time.

The only way the legal issues could be resolved is for SCOTUS to make an exception to the 14th Amendment. Even then, despite how much money California has, it doesn't have the money to build, staff, and maintain new facilities for 70,000 people. It would take a nationwide effort to resolve the problem; and we all know that's not going to happen.

Finally, the Dems would never get onboard with a new legal resolution--they'd do everything possible to defy it (see illegal immigration). I can already hear "No person is illegal!" or some other insufferable bullshit. The Republicans would never accept paying the costs. Also, they're happy the homeless problem exists because they've so successfully used it as ammunition against the Dems despite it not being true.

Money is just one factor in an extremely complicated issue.

 

[Politesse]

I can already hear "No person is illegal!" or some other insufferable

That is one hell of a way to describe the principle that all citizens deserve equal protection under the law, and that no one should be indefinitely detained without evidence of a crime. Mass incarceration would not make the homeless any less homeless. A prison cell is not a home.

 

[Politesse]

In addition, detaining these people has to be justified

No, it is not justified, or justifiable. Not owning a home is not a crime.

Now if you want to make it a much more serious crime to evict someone from their home without just cause, or for a politician to make a decision that knowongly results in a severe housing shortage or mass evictions, I'm on board.

 

[Politesse]

The only way the legal issues could be resolved is for SCOTUS to make an exception to the 14th Amendment.

This sentence makes you a traitor to your nation and its laws. The day the Supreme Court withdraws the legal protection of some classes relative to others is the day the entire national system crumbles. Without any guarantee that a citizen has any rights under the law, no one has any motivation to follow the law.

 

[ZiprHead]

You know what would fix this. Tax revenue to create housing and provide mental health treatment. But that is anathema to your side.

You can throw billions and billions of dollars at the problem and it wouldn't be enough.

One example are the 5150 holds that you can place people on. They last for about 3 days. A 5250 can hold a person for about two weeks. If they're considered an ongoing risk, they may be held for up to six months, but those are rare because all the above are people are there involuntarily. After that, they have to be released barring X incidents while being held. Also, professionals are required to evaluate them to determine if they pose a threat to themselves or others, but at some point they will be released whether they're ready or not because there's enormous pressure to get people out so that others can be brought in.

Could money be used to increase capacity for longer holds and more treatment?

In addition, detaining these people has to be justified, and even then it flirts with due process violations. It's also noteworthy that most people held for the above described holds aren't homeless to begin with. Thus, new laws at the federal level designed to specifically get homeless off the streets that currently would be in violation of basic Constitutional rights would have to be made.

You seem to feel the homeless want to be homeless or are homeless due to mental health issues. Most people are homeless simply because they cannot afford housing. Could tax revenue be used to create housing cheap enough for the homeless to live in?

There are ~70,000 homeless people in L.A. county alone. It's estimated that there are over 150,000 homeless people in California in total. For comparison, California state prisons combined contain ~90,000 inmates at any given time.

And?

The only way the legal issues could be resolved is for SCOTUS to make an exception to the 14th Amendment. Even then, despite how much money California has, it doesn't have the money to build, staff, and maintain new facilities for 70,000 people. It would take a nationwide effort to resolve the problem; and we all know that's not going to happen.

As I said, the solution is anathema to the right. And again, most homeless people want homes. They just cannot afford them. No messing with the 14th amendment necessary.

Finally, the Dems would never get onboard with a new legal resolution--they'd do everything possible to defy it (see illegal immigration). I can already hear "No person is illegal!" or some other insufferable bullshit.

The Democrats participated in a bipartisan immigration reform legislation accepted by both parties. Trump quashed it because he needed his "Biden Open Border" bullshit campaign message. Biden was following the laws as they were written. It's obvious Trump doesn't give a crap about laws or constitutionality.

The Republicans would never accept paying the costs. Also, they're happy the homeless problem exists because they've so successfully used it as ammunition against the Dems despite it not being true.

Wow, this is the first time I'm actually seeing you place some blame on Republicans when this is actually the core of the problem. Tax cuts for the right are far more important than people sleeping on the streets.

Money is just one factor in an extremely complicated issue.

Sure, Jan.

 

[TomC]

You know what would fix this. Tax revenue to create housing and provide mental health treatment. But that is anathema to your side.

I'm old.
I actually remember when the Reagan/Bush administration saved the taxpayers gazillions of dollars by closing the mental health hospitals and liberating all those people who lived in them.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

You know what would fix this. Tax revenue to create housing and provide mental health treatment. But that is anathema to your side.

I'm old.
I actually remember when the Reagan/Bush administration saved the taxpayers gazillions of dollars by closing the mental health hospitals and liberating all those people who lived in them.
Tom

And cut taxes for the rich. Remember "trickle down"?

 

[TomC]

You know what would fix this. Tax revenue to create housing and provide mental health treatment. But that is anathema to your side.

I'm old.
I actually remember when the Reagan/Bush administration saved the taxpayers gazillions of dollars by closing the mental health hospitals and liberating all those people who lived in them.
Tom

And cut taxes for the rich. Remember "trickle down"?

I also remember "A rising tide lifts all boats"


But that was back when the Kennedys were Democrats.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

You know what would fix this. Tax revenue to create housing and provide mental health treatment. But that is anathema to your side.

I'm old.
I actually remember when the Reagan/Bush administration saved the taxpayers gazillions of dollars by closing the mental health hospitals and liberating all those people who lived in them.
Tom

And cut taxes for the rich. Remember "trickle down"?

I also remember "A rising tide lifts all boats"


But that was back when the Kennedys were Democrats weren't batshit insane.
Tom

FTFY

 

[bilby]

The US right have been extraordinarily successful in framing the issue as one of mental health.

"Homeless people are mentally ill, therefore providing accommodation or money to them would be utterly futile".

It's an excellent rationalisation for making neither effort nor expenditure.

Of course, you could ask how California managed to have such a massive epidemic of mental illness; But to do so would risk either having to admit that most homeless people are not mentally ill, and so could benefit from direct financial assistance paid for by taxing the people who are so upset about having all these derelicts making the place look untidy; Or having to accept that the majority of the mental illness amongst the homeless is not a cause of their plight, but a response to it.

How else can the scale of the problem possibly be explained? If there was an epidemic of psychiatric illness caused by a bacterium or virus, surely the symptoms would be more consistent, and the pathogen would infect the financially secure, as well as the poverty stricken?

The whole poisonous narrative boils down to the ingrained cruelty of the protestant/libertarian philosophy, that says that anyone can be financially secure if they put in enough effort; And that if you are poor it is therefore because of a moral failing on your part.

Both are false, but provide (false) hope to hard working people desperate to believe that it could never happen to them.

The fact is that in the developed world, states and countries have a thing called government, whose primary role and duty is to redistribute wealth from those who have it, to those who need assistance, at any given time. To provide healthcare for the sick or injured; Education for children and redundant workers; And financial assistance for the poor.

Outside the USA and the developing world, this is what a government is for.

Passing laws telling people how to interact, and punishing those who fail to act according to those laws, is a secondary role. Making lawmakers and their cronies wealthy, by siphoning off funds or by passing regulations to boost their wealth indirectly, is a tertiary role that should be minimised as far as possible.

The USA has these three priorities inverted, leading to an horrific oligarchical society in which people mistrust government, and expect it to be valueless (or worse) when they require assistance. This is the hallmark of a Third World nation.

Which becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, as any effort to make government work for the people is stymied by a massive popular opposition to the very idea of paying taxes to make that possible.

Taxes are for lining the pockets of the already wealthy, and to fund armed men to keep the poor people from disrupting the comfort of the rich. Apparently.

Your country is fucked, because your entire concept of government is deeply counterfactual, and owes itself to the fight by wealthy media moguls against any hint of compassion or support for ordinary people (which support is known as "communism" or "socialism", both words being synonyms for "evil").

The solution to your homeless problem is redistribution of wealth - add a few percent to income tax, and hand money to people who can't make rent, so that they can afford a place to sleep that is better than a cardboard box under a freeway overpass, in a public park, or in a shop doorway.

Once you have thus eliminated the cause of homelessness, and a large majority of the homeless are homeless no more, then you can worry about the minority cases that are due to mental illness and/or substance abuse - and much of that will disappear on its own too.

The genuinely intractible part of the problem is a tiny fraction of the current whole, and focussing on it is a deliberate strategy to enable a declaration by the well-off that "throwing money at it wouldn't help". What they mean is "You can't have any of my money; I need that money to protect myself, because the government has long since abdicated its duty to protect me".

Thus does homelessness create fear of government, and fear of government create homelessness, in a neatly vicious cycle.

A state without an effective government is called a failed state. The USA is in the bizarre position of having taught its people to desire a failed state as a matter of ideology, and to be utterly oblivious as to what a government is even meant to be for.

Government is what people looking out for each other and helping each other when times are hard looks like, in an environment where there are too many people for everyone to know personally who is struggling; And thus too many opportunities for those who are doing well to freeload on society by ignoring the plight of their fellows.

The solution is a "universal charity", that works out who needs what help (and how much); And that takes donations from those who can afford to help, and uses them accordingly. As you can't shame the shameleesly greedy and selfish into voluntary donations, you must make them mandatory, and call them "taxes". Those who are not shamelessly greedy and selfish will not mind, because they would have donated anyway.

All of this hand-wringing about the enormous, growing, intractible, and insoluable problem of homeless people making "our cities" (never "their cities") dangerous and unpleasant, is just ingrained greed and selfishness (hiding behind the euphemism "small government"), coming back to bite it's advocates on their collective arses.

 

[ZiprHead]