Breakdown In Civil Order

[TSwizzle]

The Supreme Court cleared the way for cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places on Friday

News

Hopefully this will force the likes of LA mayor Karen Bass to dismantle these homeless encampments.

 

[Politesse]

The Supreme Court cleared the way for cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places on Friday

News

Hopefully this will force the likes of LA mayor Karen Bass to dismantle these homeless encampments.

And then what? After you've unlawfully detained people without charges for long periods and stolen such property as they have, where should they go?

 

[Jarhyn]

The Supreme Court cleared the way for cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places on Friday

News

Hopefully this will force the likes of LA mayor Karen Bass to dismantle these homeless encampments.

And then what? After you've unlawfully detained people without charges for long periods and stolen such property as they have, where should they go?

The only exit ramp from that cycle of being abused and being abused some more, and having the law stand behind it, especially according to history, is a smoke stack.

 

[TSwizzle]

And of course Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass condemns the court ruling;

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the Supreme Court’s decision is “disappointing” and called it a “crisis.” "This ruling must not be used as an exclusive for cities across the country to attempt to arrest their way out of this problem or hide the homelessness crisis in neighboring cities or in jail." "The only way to address this crisis is to bring people indoors with housing and supportive services," Bass said. However, it’s not easy given the storage of shelter supplies in the city.

Surprisingly, insufferable prick Gavin Newsom sees it as a positive;

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, however, said the Supreme Court decision gives state and local officials the authority to clear “unsafe encampments” and “to make spaces occupied by unhoused people safer for those within and near them. This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials,” he said, suggesting how they’ve been embroiled in years-long lawsuits blocking their efforts to clear encampments that pose health and safety concerns. Newsom also mentioned how California is investing $1 billion as part of the state’s Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF) to help move individuals experiencing homelessness out of dangerous encampments and into shelter and housing.

News

 

[thebeave]

And of course Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass condemns the court ruling;

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the Supreme Court’s decision is “disappointing” and called it a “crisis.” "This ruling must not be used as an exclusive for cities across the country to attempt to arrest their way out of this problem or hide the homelessness crisis in neighboring cities or in jail." "The only way to address this crisis is to bring people indoors with housing and supportive services," Bass said. However, it’s not easy given the storage of shelter supplies in the city.

Surprisingly, insufferable prick Gavin Newsom sees it as a positive;

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, however, said the Supreme Court decision gives state and local officials the authority to clear “unsafe encampments” and “to make spaces occupied by unhoused people safer for those within and near them. This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials,” he said, suggesting how they’ve been embroiled in years-long lawsuits blocking their efforts to clear encampments that pose health and safety concerns. Newsom also mentioned how California is investing $1 billion as part of the state’s Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF) to help move individuals experiencing homelessness out of dangerous encampments and into shelter and housing.

News

I'm certainly in favor of getting them off the streets and sidewalks, but do any of the politicians ever address what happens after the homeless get off the streets and placed into housing? Will they be paying rent or is it all subsidized? They have food, clothing, gas & electric utility expenses, transportation expenses, medical & dental expenses, etc for the rest of their lives as well, since many have no chance at getting or keeping a job. Not to mention most will need long term social services, drug addiction & mental health services. Where does all the money for this come from? Getting them housed almost seems like the easiest part of this dilemma.

 

[Politesse]

The Supreme Court cleared the way for cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places on Friday

News

Hopefully this will force the likes of LA mayor Karen Bass to dismantle these homeless encampments.

And then what? After you've unlawfully detained people without charges for long periods and stolen such property as they have, where should they go?

The only exit ramp from that cycle of being abused and being abused some more, and having the law stand behind it, especially according to history, is a smoke stack.

Unless he wishes to clarify, I think it's safe to assume that's what tswizzle's rolleyes emoticon stands for. He doesn't pull that out because he doesn't know the answer, but because even he has enough shame to not want to say "I want them all to disappear somehow" out loud.

 

[Politesse]

Akd

And of course Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass condemns the court ruling;

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the Supreme Court’s decision is “disappointing” and called it a “crisis.” "This ruling must not be used as an exclusive for cities across the country to attempt to arrest their way out of this problem or hide the homelessness crisis in neighboring cities or in jail." "The only way to address this crisis is to bring people indoors with housing and supportive services," Bass said. However, it’s not easy given the storage of shelter supplies in the city.

Surprisingly, insufferable prick Gavin Newsom sees it as a positive;

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, however, said the Supreme Court decision gives state and local officials the authority to clear “unsafe encampments” and “to make spaces occupied by unhoused people safer for those within and near them. This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials,” he said, suggesting how they’ve been embroiled in years-long lawsuits blocking their efforts to clear encampments that pose health and safety concerns. Newsom also mentioned how California is investing $1 billion as part of the state’s Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF) to help move individuals experiencing homelessness out of dangerous encampments and into shelter and housing.

News

I'm certainly in favor of getting them off the streets and sidewalks, but do any of the politicians ever address what happens after the homeless get off the streets and placed into housing? Will they be paying rent or is it all subsidized? They have food, clothing, gas & electric utility expenses, transportation expenses, medical & dental expenses, etc for the rest of their lives as well, since many have no chance at getting or keeping a job. Not to mention most will need long term social services, drug addiction & mental health services. Where does all the money for this come from? Getting them housed almost seems like the easiest part of this dilemma.

And Newsom just gutted county social services to the bone. Every agency charged with helping the most desperate unhoused people is currently scrambling to figure out how they're going to run on half their budget, without losing half their staff.

That said, you're strongly mischaracterizing the homeless population, most of which engages in some kind of paying work. More than half have an actual job, and of the rest, most manage food and clothes on their own one way or another. A complex blend of labor and charity, for most. Assistance helps, especially for parents, but no government agency is willing or able to throw more than a few hundred dollars at any given person. Most people have to either scrounge, hustle, or starve.

I would love it if every time I realized a student is homeless, I could just hit the "government" button under my desk and solve all their problems. If I could do that, I would not give a flying shit about "fairness". No one "deserves" to die in a pool of blood, shit, and Narcan. But ours is not a fair world, and there is no magic button.

 

[TSwizzle]

I'm certainly in favor of getting them off the streets and sidewalks, but do any of the politicians ever address what happens after the homeless get off the streets and placed into housing? Will they be paying rent or is it all subsidized? They have food, clothing, gas & electric utility expenses, transportation expenses, medical & dental expenses, etc for the rest of their lives as well, since many have no chance at getting or keeping a job. Not to mention most will need long term social services, drug addiction & mental health services. Where does all the money for this come from? Getting them housed almost seems like the easiest part of this dilemma.

Most of it comes from the tax payer. Some from charities. California voters (barely) approved $6.8 billion bond (proposition 1) to fund more "homeless" programs. There is something in the works to increase sales tax permanently in Los Angeles when a temporary tax elapses. This tax was specifically for funding "homeless" initiatives. There is plenty money going into "homelessness" but I think the more important question is, what the fuck are they doing with all this money? As it turns out, the authorities don't really know where all the money went. And despite all this money, the "homeless" crisis gets worse, not better.

 

[thebeave]

Akd

And of course Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass condemns the court ruling;

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the Supreme Court’s decision is “disappointing” and called it a “crisis.” "This ruling must not be used as an exclusive for cities across the country to attempt to arrest their way out of this problem or hide the homelessness crisis in neighboring cities or in jail." "The only way to address this crisis is to bring people indoors with housing and supportive services," Bass said. However, it’s not easy given the storage of shelter supplies in the city.

Surprisingly, insufferable prick Gavin Newsom sees it as a positive;

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, however, said the Supreme Court decision gives state and local officials the authority to clear “unsafe encampments” and “to make spaces occupied by unhoused people safer for those within and near them. This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials,” he said, suggesting how they’ve been embroiled in years-long lawsuits blocking their efforts to clear encampments that pose health and safety concerns. Newsom also mentioned how California is investing $1 billion as part of the state’s Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF) to help move individuals experiencing homelessness out of dangerous encampments and into shelter and housing.

News

I'm certainly in favor of getting them off the streets and sidewalks, but do any of the politicians ever address what happens after the homeless get off the streets and placed into housing? Will they be paying rent or is it all subsidized? They have food, clothing, gas & electric utility expenses, transportation expenses, medical & dental expenses, etc for the rest of their lives as well, since many have no chance at getting or keeping a job. Not to mention most will need long term social services, drug addiction & mental health services. Where does all the money for this come from? Getting them housed almost seems like the easiest part of this dilemma.

And Newsom just gutted county social services to the bone. Every agency charged with helping the most desperate unhoused people is currently scrambling to figure out how they're going to run on half their budget, without losing half their staff.

That said, you're strongly mischaracterizing the homeless population, most of which engages in some kind of paying work. More than half have an actual job, and of the rest, most manage food and clothes on their own one way or another. A complex blend of labor and charity, for most. Assistance helps, especially for parents, but no government agency is willing or able to throw more than a few hundred dollars at any given person. Most people have to either scrounge, hustle, or starve.

I would love it if every time I realized a student is homeless, I could just hit the "government" button under my desk and solve all their problems. If I could do that, I would not give a flying shit about "fairness". No one "deserves" to die in a pool of blood, shit, and Narcan. But ours is not a fair world, and there is no magic button.

You are the one who is doing the mischaracterization. I said "many" can't get jobs, while you said "most"engage in some kind of paying work. The two statements are not contradicting each other.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I'm certainly in favor of getting them off the streets and sidewalks, but do any of the politicians ever address what happens after the homeless get off the streets and placed into housing? Will they be paying rent or is it all subsidized? They have food, clothing, gas & electric utility expenses, transportation expenses, medical & dental expenses, etc for the rest of their lives as well, since many have no chance at getting or keeping a job. Not to mention most will need long term social services, drug addiction & mental health services. Where does all the money for this come from? Getting them housed almost seems like the easiest part of this dilemma.

There are plenty of programs both public and quasi-public that do keep people off the streets, help with transportation, court appearances, and transitional employment. That the homeless situation worsens is not an indication these programs do not work. They do. The problem is just overwhelming. One problem is landlords who lie and say they have no vacancies when its the county or one of these nonprofits calling.

These are people who have gotten the shitty end of everything in life. They've no particular talent, lack the intellectual capacity to excel, and/or are so psychologically damaged they cannot hold a job. What should be done? We should take care of them, for life if necessary with money from those who are living a good life. What better use of our tax dollars.

 

[robnisch]

I'm certainly in favor of getting them off the streets and sidewalks, but do any of the politicians ever address what happens after the homeless get off the streets and placed into housing? Will they be paying rent or is it all subsidized? They have food, clothing, gas & electric utility expenses, transportation expenses, medical & dental expenses, etc for the rest of their lives as well, since many have no chance at getting or keeping a job. Not to mention most will need long term social services, drug addiction & mental health services. Where does all the money for this come from? Getting them housed almost seems like the easiest part of this dilemma.

There are plenty of programs both public and quasi-public that do keep people off the streets, help with transportation, court appearances, and transitional employment. That the homeless situation worsens is not an indication these programs do not work. They do. The problem is just overwhelming. One problem is landlords who lie and say they have no vacancies when its the county or one of these nonprofits calling.

These are people who have gotten the shitty end of everything in life. They've no particular talent, lack the intellectual capacity to excel, and/or are so psychologically damaged they cannot hold a job. What should be done? We should take care of them, for life if necessary with money from those who are living a good life. What better use of our tax dollars.

What would Jesus do?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Supreme Court cleared the way for cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places on Friday

News

Hopefully this will force the likes of LA mayor Karen Bass to dismantle these homeless encampments.

And then what? After you've unlawfully detained people without charges for long periods and stolen such property as they have, where should they go?

Build the gulags!

And how dare you point out the problem with their approach. They're homeless for a reason, chasing them from place to place will not fix that. Although it probably will kill a few who find hiding places that turn out to be dangerous. There's a lot of flood control stuff around here that for the most part sits completely empty. I've found open gates, though, and the fences don't extend very far away from civilization.

 

[bilby]

Build the gulags!

See, this is the problem with you bleeding heart liberals.

The homeless are ruining Santa Monica, and you want to spend taxpayer dollars to send them camping?!

 

[Emily Lake]

The Supreme Court cleared the way for cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places on Friday

News

Hopefully this will force the likes of LA mayor Karen Bass to dismantle these homeless encampments.

And then what? After you've unlawfully detained people without charges for long periods and stolen such property as they have, where should they go?

Why don't you invite them to come live at your house?

 

[Politesse]

The Supreme Court cleared the way for cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places on Friday

News

Hopefully this will force the likes of LA mayor Karen Bass to dismantle these homeless encampments.

And then what? After you've unlawfully detained people without charges for long periods and stolen such property as they have, where should they go?

Why don't you invite them to come live at your house?

Because I live in a very tiny apartment. I have hosted homeless families in the past, and it's not as horrifying an experience as you seem to be imagining.

That said, if random people voluntarily opening up their homes were going to be a viable solution to the macrosocial problem of 650,000 unhoused Americans, the problem would already be solved. The vast majority of people are not willing to do anything of the sort, so it is not a solution at scale.

 

[Emily Lake]

The Supreme Court cleared the way for cities to enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outside in public places on Friday

News

Hopefully this will force the likes of LA mayor Karen Bass to dismantle these homeless encampments.

And then what? After you've unlawfully detained people without charges for long periods and stolen such property as they have, where should they go?

Why don't you invite them to come live at your house?

Because I live in a very tiny apartment. I have hosted homeless families in the past, and it's not as horrifying an experience as you seem to be imagining.

That said, if random people voluntarily opening up their homes were going to be a viable solution to the macrosocial problem of 650,000 unhoused Americans, the problem would already be solved. The vast majority of people are not willing to do anything of the sort, so it is not a solution at scale.

Can you imagine any reason why the vast majority of people are not willing to open up their homes to complete strangers? Can you think of any risks associated with such an action that many people might very reasonably be unwilling to take?

Of course it's not a reasonable solution. But neither is just letting homeless people camp on sidewalks and inhibit the daily lives of everyone else. There shouldn't be anything objectionable to recognizing that having a whole camp of homeless people setting up shop in public places is a problem.

 

[Tigers!]

I'm certainly in favor of getting them off the streets and sidewalks, but do any of the politicians ever address what happens after the homeless get off the streets and placed into housing? Will they be paying rent or is it all subsidized? They have food, clothing, gas & electric utility expenses, transportation expenses, medical & dental expenses, etc for the rest of their lives as well, since many have no chance at getting or keeping a job. Not to mention most will need long term social services, drug addiction & mental health services. Where does all the money for this come from? Getting them housed almost seems like the easiest part of this dilemma.

There are plenty of programs both public and quasi-public that do keep people off the streets, help with transportation, court appearances, and transitional employment. That the homeless situation worsens is not an indication these programs do not work. They do. The problem is just overwhelming. One problem is landlords who lie and say they have no vacancies when its the county or one of these nonprofits calling.

These are people who have gotten the shitty end of everything in life. They've no particular talent, lack the intellectual capacity to excel, and/or are so psychologically damaged they cannot hold a job. What should be done? We should take care of them, for life if necessary with money from those who are living a good life. What better use of our tax dollars.

What would Jesus do?

Matthew 25:40-45

 

[Politesse]

Can you imagine any reason why the vast majority of people are not willing to open up their homes to complete strangers? Can you think of any risks associated with such an action that many people might very reasonably be unwilling to take?

Easily. That's one of the several major reasons why I don't think your "solution" is workable at scale.

There shouldn't be anything objectionable to recognizing that having a whole camp of homeless people setting up shop in public places is a problem.

I absolutely do recognize that there's a problem, a massive problem, and support any honest efforts to sove that problem that do not involve the selective degradation of the rights of American citizens.

 

[Emily Lake]

There shouldn't be anything objectionable to recognizing that having a whole camp of homeless people setting up shop in public places is a problem.

I absolutely do recognize that there's a problem, a massive problem, and support any honest efforts to sove that problem that do not involve the selective degradation of the rights of American citizens.

Which citizen's rights are you worried about? One might think that you are invested in protecting the right of homeless citizens to camp in public spaces and use drugs in the open a bit more than you're concerned about the right of all other citizens to have access to clean and safe public spaces free of drug needles and trash.

Sometimes there are more than one single set of rights involved, and it's disingenuous to focus on solely one small group's rights to the detriment of many others.

 

[Politesse]

Which citizen's rights are you worried about?

All citizens rights matter, and we will stand and fall together on the strength of our willingness to defend the rights of all of our neighbors. Those you consider neighbors, and also those you talk about as though they were just so much human trash. Believe me, if the shoe were on the other foot, you would suddenly find that you were not in fact willing to surrender your life and property without a fight, just ensure the emotional comfort of the homed population. But it would be too late for you, then. No one listens to the homeless, especially not homeless women, nor considers them to have any right to define their own rights or fate. Soon you would find yourself dependent on the goodwill of people who are... just like you used to be.

It's not just a thought experiment, I talked to plenty of homeless folks who were in that exact position, suddenly on the other side of a fence they didn't even think it was possible to cross. It can happen fast. Very fast.