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?’
Forced treatment, whether it be for addiction, mental illness, or even the people who've just had really bad luck. Obviously the latter likely wouldn't need treatment in the medical sense, but they could be housed until they get back on their feet.
What I'm talking about here is purely big picture stuff. Think of it as the cover of a dictionary.
Anyway, none of this will ever happen for the reasons I stated above.
Unfortunately, forced treatment does not work. Whether for addiction or mental illness. Wish it did, but it does not.
In any case, helping people overcome their addiction and/ or mental illness is only the first step. Especially if there is a criminal record or significant gap in employment t history, poor credit, etc.
Sometimes people with these problems get jobs off the books, which provides them with some income. I doubt that any taxes are paid out of their paychecks and they aren’t contributing to SS so when they can no longer do paid work ( assuming they live that long) they are really and truly indigent.
I used to be very opposed to universal basic income. I’m not anymore. I am older and have known in my life people who are unable to work for mental health or physical health reasons ( and I include addiction under this umbrella) or to find work for sufficient money to support themselves in even very bare bones circumstances.
So what do we do with these people? Let them be homeless? Let them die horrible deaths? Imprison them? Let me be clear: Being poor is not indicative of being a bad person. Being mentally or physically ill is not indicative of being a bad person. Being an addict in and of itself is not indicative of being a bad person. Illness and addiction can have strong genetic components. Some of these conditions, particularly abduction, can result in people doing really bad things and over time, can overwhelm whatever good nature exists within them.
These are all conditions that can happen in any family, of any socioeconomic means. If it has t happened in your family: you’re lucky. Not smarter, not richer, not better: just luckier.
So why not provide UBI? Why not provide much much more lower income housing but integrated into communities and on site provide medical services including mental health and addiction services and counseling, including jobs skills, life skills, money management skills, parenting skills. Provide clear paths to independence for those who can with plenty of support along the way.
And of course, comprehensive universal health care.
Yeah, we’re likely to have some for whom this pattern continues for generations. But not all will continue in this pattern. Some will find ways out. They may be able to help their family members or friends up and out.
I’m thinking now of people I’ve known since they were kids, who grew up in bad circumstances, with very dysfunctional families, some members who deliberately did their best to undermine efforts to overcome a very bad generational cycle. And yet these kids became adults who, despite some very real struggles, are well functioning adults with jobs, families they support and regular lives. So, it’s possible and it happens. Just as in families that are stable and economically secure can have family members who just do not function because of addiction or mental illness or whatever. We cannot let ourselves be smug about this or judgmental. It could be any of us.
We also cannot let this pull us under—not as individuals or families and not as a society.
