California Doing California Things

[TSwizzle]

Because for those of us who actually live here - and actually go outside from time to time - its obvious that the whole thing is a politically motivated media cook up.

Media cook up? What on earth are you on about? For those of that go outside, this is the reality of it, seen with our own eyes. Media cook up, what nonsense.

California does face certain challenges, but they are the challenges any prosperous state will inevitably face, and facing those challenges pragmatically is far better than screaming back at the television and voting brainlessly for wannabe fascists.

These problems that I constantly bring to attention are down to brainlessly voting democrat. 16 years of democratic rule got us here.

Discount fascisti, who perpetually and paradoxically promise "change" and "back to the good old days", but only ever deliver scams and transparent propaganda, decade in and decade out.

Again, sixteen years of democratic policies got us here.





Fourth largest economy in the world

 

[Toni]

Watching it steadily go to pot while so many overly idealistic people pretend everything's fine is maddening.

It was maddening in the 1960s. One of the biggest reasons I left.

It was happening all over the country in the 60s. Taxpayer funded "freeways" made white flight to the suburbs easy. Anyone who could afford an expensive product from a carmaker, the fuel and insurance, could leave the cities. And they did by the millions.
Get a good picture of Detroit or Baltimore for comparison. It was ugly, but hardly a California thing.
Tom

Cars in the '60's were relatively cheap and so was fuel. Homes were relatively inexpensive compared with now as well.

Farmland was cheap and it was easy for builders to purchase a distressed bit of farmland or land that the next generation did not want to farm to build housing developments. There was a population explosion after WWII and Korea that helped to drive the need for larger homes than city apartments, plus more people were leaving farm life with all of its uncertainties behind in favor of office or factory work. At the same time, these people wanted to live in a quieter place than a city and so lots of bedroom communities popped up and small towns near cities became a bit larger and became suburbs.

Also a whole lotta white flight.

 

[Toni]

Because for those of us who actually live here - and actually go outside from time to time - its obvious that the whole thing is a politically motivated media cook up.

Media cook up? What on earth are you on about? For those of that go outside, this is the reality of it, seen with our own eyes. Media cook up, what nonsense.

California does face certain challenges, but they are the challenges any prosperous state will inevitably face, and facing those challenges pragmatically is far better than screaming back at the television and voting brainlessly for wannabe fascists.

These problems that I constantly bring to attention are down to brainlessly voting democrat. 16 years of democratic rule got us here.

Discount fascisti, who perpetually and paradoxically promise "change" and "back to the good old days", but only ever deliver scams and transparent propaganda, decade in and decade out.

Again, sixteen years of democratic policies got us here.





Fourth largest economy in the world

Real question: Since you hate LA and California so much, why don't you move elsewhere?

We enjoyed our time on the east coast but found it unaffordable long term at least if we were to live in a place we wanted to live (not congested) so we moved inland, which was closer to our families. And much more affordable.

That said, cities are cities are cities. My observation is that urban issues do not disappear or really improve with Republicans in charge.

 

[TSwizzle]

Real question: Since you hate LA and California so much, why don't you move elsewhere?

It wasn't always like this. These problems are recent. So it can be changed.

That said, cities are cities are cities. My observation is that urban issues do not disappear or really improve with Republicans in charge.

Of course there are problems but these problems are getting worse, far worse. It wasn't like this before. 16 years of democratic policies got us here.

 

[ZiprHead]

These problems that I constantly bring to attention are down to brainlessly voting democrat. 16 years of democratic rule got us here.

You've been asked numerous times what you would do differently yet you never answer.

 

[Toni]

Real question: Since you hate LA and California so much, why don't you move elsewhere?

It wasn't always like this. These problems are recent. So it can be changed.

That said, cities are cities are cities. My observation is that urban issues do not disappear or really improve with Republicans in charge.

Of course there are problems but these problems are getting worse, far worse. It wasn't like this before. 16 years of democratic policies got us here.

Can you be more specific about what policies you believe contribute to the problems that you see?
Can you tell us something about what you would do to address these problems (aside from elect not Democrats)?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

This is what we have to put up with in the fourth largest economy in the world.

That's a city problem, not a state problem.

It's representative of what's happening and has been happening in the populous areas of California for far too long. L.A. and. the L.A. area in general is a big part of what makes California what it is. Watching it steadily go to pot while so many overly idealistic people pretend everything's fine is maddening. It's a refusal to acknowledge just bad things have gotten and the basis for that refusal to admit it is baffling in the highest.

There are three empty homes within two blocks of me. Two have burned. There may be more because I don't go down the streets parallel to the street I live on.

The city property taxes cease being paid. They have to not have been paid for two years for the city to begin foreclosure procedures on the property. That costs the city money. They then have to decide what to do with the property. Some they try to sell on the cheap. Some they have to tear down, like the burned properties. But that also costs money. Money that neither you nor swiz want to pay.

Again, the arrogance of thinking this is only happening in California.

Where on earth do you get the idea that I'm not willing to pay taxes for it???

Okay, so here goes once again:

1. To clean up the homeless problem and relieve cities of the problem of homelessness and the problems it brings e.g. destruction of property and property values, an exception is going to have to be carved out of the 14th Amendment so that people can be taken off the streets and forced into treatment and housing. The 5th Amendment deals with due process, which would have to be suspended for people living on the streets as well. This is a very, very, very basic summation of the legal part of the problem.

2. The Dems would never allow those exceptions to happen, but even they did...

3. Republicans would block any ability that state governments and the Fed would have to spend the money necessary. The GOP has a vested interest in blaming these problems on the left and they'll never let that leverage go. "I shouldn't have to pay for that!" will always appeal to those who complain the loudest about poor urban conditions.

My position is that I would be happy to pay a few dollars more per week to fix the problems and I'd be willing to make exceptions so that we could get these people off the street. It would be expensive and messy, and we'd be on a very slippery slope, but for the good it would do for both the homeless and everyone else, it would be worth it... bigly.

 

[Politesse]

Again, sixteen years of democratic policies got us here.

What policy?

Do you, like Colonel Sanders above, demand the dissolution of the Fourteenth Amendment, just to solve California's woes? If not, what?

 

[Politesse]

problems are recent. So it can be changed.

What are you talking about? In what year were there no vacant buildings or house fires in California? Let me guess, you think Governor Schwarzenegger personally sold all vacant units and put out all the fires when HE was in charge. Or Ronnie Reagan, perhaps.

 

[Elixir]

Also a whole lotta white flight.

I was that. Moved from the Haight Ashbury to Pacific Heights to Marin County... woke up one morning in the beautiful house in San Anselmo, went out on the deck and got spooked by the huge vibe. The entire Bay Area seemed to groan as one, under the weight and duress of human activity.
Next stop: Mountains west of Boulder. 20 yrs later, chased out by growth to a then VERY rural area with nary a human within a half mile... and am now bordered by half acre to two acre homesites on two sides of our 15 acres, which seems so tiny now.

 

[Politesse]

The eyeroll again. Of course. The specific disastrous Democrat policy is "rolling eyes". Got it. Well, I'll be sure to tell Governor Newsom to stop doing that, next time I see him. Shame, shame on him for rolling his eyes instead of saying or doing anything substantive. Shame.

 

[Toni]

This is what we have to put up with in the fourth largest economy in the world.

That's a city problem, not a state problem.

It's representative of what's happening and has been happening in the populous areas of California for far too long. L.A. and. the L.A. area in general is a big part of what makes California what it is. Watching it steadily go to pot while so many overly idealistic people pretend everything's fine is maddening. It's a refusal to acknowledge just bad things have gotten and the basis for that refusal to admit it is baffling in the highest.

There are three empty homes within two blocks of me. Two have burned. There may be more because I don't go down the streets parallel to the street I live on.

The city property taxes cease being paid. They have to not have been paid for two years for the city to begin foreclosure procedures on the property. That costs the city money. They then have to decide what to do with the property. Some they try to sell on the cheap. Some they have to tear down, like the burned properties. But that also costs money. Money that neither you nor swiz want to pay.

Again, the arrogance of thinking this is only happening in California.

Where on earth do you get the idea that I'm not willing to pay taxes for it???

Okay, so here goes once again:

1. To clean up the homeless problem and relieve cities of the problem of homelessness and the problems it brings e.g. destruction of property and property values, an exception is going to have to be carved out of the 14th Amendment so that people can be taken off the streets and forced into treatment and housing. The 5th Amendment deals with due process, which would have to be suspended for people living on the streets as well. This is a very, very, very basic summation of the legal part of the problem.

2. The Dems would never allow those exceptions to happen, but even they did...

3. Republicans would block any ability that state governments and the Fed would have to spend the money necessary. The GOP has a vested interest in blaming these problems on the left and they'll never let that leverage go. "I shouldn't have to pay for that!" will always appeal to those who complain the loudest about poor urban conditions.

My position is that I would be happy to pay a few dollars more per week to fix the problems and I'd be willing to make exceptions so that we could get these people off the street. It would be expensive and messy, and we'd be on a very slippery slope, but for the good it would do for both the homeless and everyone else, it would be worth it... bigly.

So what do you mean by ‘get them off the streets?’

 

[Elixir]

So what do you mean by ‘get them off the streets?’

I’m reading “intern them in ‘the projects’”.
Maybe build a big fence around it with guard towers so they don’t get out and shit on somebody’s doorstep? Airdrop some rice once a week …

 

[Toni]

So what do you mean by ‘get them off the streets?’

I’m reading “intern them in ‘the projects’”.
Maybe build a big fence around it with guard towers so they don’t get out and shit on somebody’s doorstep? Airdrop some rice once a week …

I think there is a legitimate argument pro/con about releasing seriously mentally ill persons onto the streets without already established housing/food/mental health help/physical medical needs addressed. Plus transportation, jobs training/placement. A significant portion of the homeless have serious mental health issues and physical problems and/pr substance abuse problems.

There is a serious problem with the cost of housing throughout the US putting a sizable portion of us at risk of losing our homes, be they apartment or suburban houses. One or two missed paychecks can mean people cannot make those payments. In the past few months two of my family members in their 60’s lost their jobs. Both live very modest lives. One found another job fairly quickly; the other is still looking. The one who is still looking is not in a position to retire. Both have university degrees and have been employed for decades. My point being that being homeless can happen to most of us. Including people with dependent children.

 

[Elixir]

I think there is a legitimate argument pro/con about releasing seriously mentally ill persons onto the streets without already established housing/food/mental health help/physical medical needs addressed.

The legitimate argument is simply how much are we willing to spend/invest in people who are generally considered social parasites by a whole swathe of the public.
Having decided that, we can hopefully narrow the discussions to goals that are achievable under the extant budget.
Then we can settle in an action plan.
Probably something between round ‘em up, shoot them and bury them in a pit, and grant them sufficient public resources to keep them from shitting on Swiz’s doorstep.

 

[laughing dog]

Yams rock. Just sayin’

My maternal gramma used to make yams with marshmallows on top for Thanksgiving dinner. I hated them.

WHY? They’re phenomenally good, especially with marshmallows.

Entire reason I detest sweet potatoes/yams.

I love sweet potato/yams. What I detest is adding sugar to yummy veggies.
Baked, like a white potato in the skin, dribbled with a little butter... Yum!
I have made candied yams, full of molasses and honey, covered with marshmallows, for family dinners. Pan always comes back empty. But I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
I also prefer steamed brussel sprouts over chocolate, my tastes are not the norm.
Tom

Steamed brussel sprouts over chocolate sounds disgusting: your tastes are not the norm.

 

[Toni]

I think there is a legitimate argument pro/con about releasing seriously mentally ill persons onto the streets without already established housing/food/mental health help/physical medical needs addressed.

The legitimate argument is simply how much are we willing to spend/invest in people who are generally considered social parasites by a whole swathe of the public.
Having decided that, we can hopefully narrow the discussions to goals that are achievable under the extant budget.
Then we can settle in an action plan.
Probably something between round ‘em up, shoot them and bury them in a pit, and grant them sufficient public resources to keep them from shitting on Swiz’s doorstep.

Hey, maybe some of them are acquainted with Swiz and are not mentally ill at all.....

I wrote that fully understanding that there exist in the world people who would happily take a dump on my doorstep as well.

Why do you think I use a pseudonym?

 

[Politesse]

The legitimate argument is simply how much are we willing to spend/invest in people who are generally considered social parasites by a whole swathe of the public.

I would not consider mass arrests and concentrated internments on the basis of social class to be "investing in people", per se.

I actually think Coponel Sanders is tye most, if not the only, honest participant in this conversation with respecr to the homeleseness issue. What he wants is savage, but it's also what everyone secretly or not-so-secretly wants done. He's just far more straightforward about why that final solution conflicts with the Constitition.

 

[Elixir]

I would not consider mass arrests and concentrated internments on the basis of social class to be "investing in people", per se.

It's code for "investing in getting rid of problem people".(Don't worry - we can make more!)

 

[bilby]

A significant portion of the homeless have serious mental health issues and physical problems and/pr substance abuse problems.

Sure; But how much of the mental health and substance abuse problem is a cause of homelessness, and how much a consequence of it?