California Doing California Things

[Loren Pechtel]

“Homeless” numbers increased in Los Angeles.

With The Felon in office what do you expect?

The Republican mantra is blame everything on Democrats. Do not solve problems, do not permit problems to be solved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you're a Republican, the "homeless" are not true citizens, and their woes are not a practical problem to be solved. The "homeless" are a symbol of moral degeneracy, to he shunned and feared as symbols of God's wrath toward a wicked people. They want the "problem" to go away by magic, dammit, not with work, and definitely not with funding! If we would just elect some millionaire minor celebrity who lives in Orange County and brags about his gun collection to be the governor, the "homeless" would just melt away into the aether.

All social problems, not just the homeless.

But they don't actually want the problem to go away, they want an obvious problem to protect you from.

 

[Politesse]

Hunter-gatherer is not viable in most modern ecosystems.

Foraged goods are a part of many anthropogenic landscapes even in the modern world. I think what you're trying to say is that it is not possible for the population of, say, a modern metropolis to survive solely off of gathered food. This is true. But rarely are we talking about thousands let alone of people trying to live only in such a fashion. Occasional hunting, fishing, logging, and wild gathering are an important part of life for many people, be they homeless, impoverished, or just inclined to take food and material collection into their own hands, and rarely do they make such an impact on the environment that the government has to intervene. In general, both we and our landscapes would benefit if there were more use of natural resources over industrially produced ones. Periodic hunting of deer, in season, does not cause ecosystemic malfunction, but actually prevents it. Fishing can be a problem, but again, it's rarely if ever individuals throwing a line off the local pier of a weekend who are the greatest threat to our fisheries - that's be environmental degradation, stream pollutants, and overfishing by commercial fleets.

I suppose this is getting away from the thread topic a bit, but then perhaps it depends on which California we want to talk about, as we do have our urban foragers in the cities, recreational fishing in our lakes and streams, weekend gold panners, subsistence hunters and trappers in the Cascades and Sierras, and indigenous wild harvesters wherever Native folks have congregated. Quite the range as far as scope, seriousness, and impact on our wild spaces. In general, I think California does a good job of managing our human-wild landscapes compared to many other states, but there is much room for improvement.

 

[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.

I’m probably way less bothered by all of them taking a shot on Swiz’s doorstep than I should be. Frankly all of my sympathy is with those who don’t have another choice or the capacity to make better choices.

More seriously, this has been a known problem, albeit a less massive issue for a long time. We need to actually start doing the things on the list and as a temporary measure, putting people up in hotels, hopefully with an on site counseling office that can direct people to immediate resources.

Honestly, a lot of people really just need a clean, safe, climate controlled private place to sleep, wash up and grab a meal. Store some stuff. Have access to WiFi. Places that include enough room for families and even pets.

Plus a lot of counseling, mental health help, and coaching.

Others need a lot more intervention, particularly those with serious or chronic mental illnesses and substance abuse issues. Those issues can be very difficult to treat and for individuals to overcome. We tend to want to do something g fast and easy and this ain’t it.

But moreover, we need to look at the social safety net that many other countries find it entirely possible to implement. Prevention and support for persons and families in crisis, affordable decent stable housing and good access to good healthcare and healthy food.

My town isn’t very big and we face the same issues. As a community, I’ve been blown away by the generosity and open heartedness of community members here, many with very modest means.
That says, there are some people who are simply dysfunctional—who, fur whatever reason, lack basic life skills. I know a couple and I help out occasionally. I don’t actually know how they got to where they are but my strong suspicion is that they grew up in very dysfunctional circumstances.

Yeah, I know people who grew up in some pretty terrible circumstances who have made good stable lives fir themselves and their families so I don’t buy the while throw up have and saying there’s nothing to be done.

Yeah. Some portion will have long term difficulty coping . But for many, simple interventions abd some me tiring can help them recover themselves.

And why should we not be in favor of helping people to get their lives on track?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hunter-gatherer is not viable in most modern ecosystems.

Foraged goods are a part of many anthropogenic landscapes even in the modern world. I think what you're trying to say is that it is not possible for the population of, say, a modern metropolis to survive solely off of gathered food. This is true. But rarely are we talking about thousands let alone of people trying to live only in such a fashion. Occasional hunting, fishing, logging, and wild gathering are an important part of life for many people, be they homeless, impoverished, or just inclined to take food and material collection into their own hands, and rarely do they make such an impact on the environment that the government has to intervene. In general, both we and our landscapes would benefit if there were more use of natural resources over industrially produced ones. Periodic hunting of deer, in season, does not cause ecosystemic malfunction, but actually prevents it. Fishing can be a problem, but again, it's rarely if ever individuals throwing a line off the local pier of a weekend who are the greatest threat to our fisheries - that's be environmental degradation, stream pollutants, and overfishing by commercial fleets.

Keyword: "periodic". Most ecosystems can tolerate some harvesting. Most ecosystems can not tolerate year round harvesting.

 

[RVonse]

“Homeless” numbers increased in Los Angeles.

With The Felon in office what do you expect?

The Republican mantra is blame everything on Democrats. Do not solve problems, do not permit problems to be solved.

Since Los Angeles California is run and managed by a monopoly of Democrats......who else should the Republicans be blaming for this problem??? WTF does Trump have to do with California?

I could see your point if democracy was really practiced in L.A. But it is 1 party monopoly rule from the governor all the way down to the dog catcher.

And the solution to this problem is obvious. Just allow the already rich to build more homes! No need for local government to spend money or graft more money to their friends. All they need to do is leave people alone long enough to build more homes. That way all the real estate becomes cheaper until the homeless can afford shelter. But true democrats can't leave people alone and let people build more homes.

 

[thebeave]

“Homeless” numbers increased in Los Angeles.

With The Felon in office what do you expect?

The Republican mantra is blame everything on Democrats. Do not solve problems, do not permit problems to be solved.

Since Los Angeles California is run and managed by a monopoly of Democrats......who else should the Republicans be blaming for this problem??? WTF does Trump have to do with California?

I could see your point if democracy was really practiced in L.A. But it is 1 party monopoly rule from the governor all the way down to the dog catcher.

And the solution to this problem is obvious. Just allow the already rich to build more homes! No need for local government to spend money or graft more money to their friends. All they need to do is leave people alone long enough to build more homes. That way all the real estate becomes cheaper until the homeless can afford shelter. But true democrats can't leave people alone and let people build more homes.

Its mostly a problem of drug abuse and mental illness. Even when offered shelter, many homeless refuse them. And how would these people afford a new home built by rich developers anyway? They have no money, and addiction and mental problems that essentially keep them out of the job and housing market.

But yes, we do have a housing shortage overall in this state and more needs to be built. That is largely a separate issue from what is happening on the streets, though.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

“Homeless” numbers increased in Los Angeles.

With The Felon in office what do you expect?

The Republican mantra is blame everything on Democrats. Do not solve problems, do not permit problems to be solved.

Since Los Angeles California is run and managed by a monopoly of Democrats......who else should the Republicans be blaming for this problem???

Consequences of a generally capitalistic heavy economic system?

And the solution to this problem is obvious.

Yes, the solution to homelessness is obvious... which is why homelessness has been plaguing societies since societies were born.

Just allow the already rich to build more homes!

JFCOAS!

No need for local government to spend money or graft more money to their friends. All they need to do is leave people alone long enough to build more homes. That way all the real estate becomes cheaper until the homeless can afford shelter. But true democrats can't leave people alone and let people build more homes.

Are there enough wealthy people to build enough homes to create a slack in housing supply in the state of California to depress housing costs?

 

[RVonse]

“Homeless” numbers increased in Los Angeles.

With The Felon in office what do you expect?

The Republican mantra is blame everything on Democrats. Do not solve problems, do not permit problems to be solved.

Since Los Angeles California is run and managed by a monopoly of Democrats......who else should the Republicans be blaming for this problem??? WTF does Trump have to do with California?

I could see your point if democracy was really practiced in L.A. But it is 1 party monopoly rule from the governor all the way down to the dog catcher.

And the solution to this problem is obvious. Just allow the already rich to build more homes! No need for local government to spend money or graft more money to their friends. All they need to do is leave people alone long enough to build more homes. That way all the real estate becomes cheaper until the homeless can afford shelter. But true democrats can't leave people alone and let people build more homes.

Its mostly a problem of drug abuse and mental illness. Even when offered shelter, many homeless refuse them. And how would these people afford a new home built by rich developers anyway? They have no money, and addiction and mental problems that essentially keep them out of the job and housing market.

But yes, we do have a housing shortage overall in this state and more needs to be built. That is largely a separate issue from what is happening on the streets, though.

They wouldn't. The rich would buy the newly constructed home and move out of their existing residence. Then the next slightly less rich person moves into their old place. Then the next slightly less rich person takes their old place. Rinse and repeat until finally there is an older starter type home leftover that is affordable for a homeless person to call his own.

Its called supply vs demand and it is commonly accepted that the more of something that is available (in this case homes) the lower the price is driven down.

And drug abuse is not causing people to be homeless, you have the cart and the horse backwards. Someone who loses their home is in a seriously depressed state and then gets hooked on drugs. Los Angeles has always had drugs, in fact when cocaine was legal there were fewer homeless in Los Angeles than there are today. Because back when coke and other drugs were legal, homes were affordable in Los Angeles....even if you were poor.

 

[RVonse]

Even when offered shelter, many homeless refuse them.

They aren't refusing shelter they are refusing democrat controlled government getting into their lives. And I don't blame them.

I guarantee that if you bring down the price of homes cheap enough that all of the homeless will gladly take the shelter instead of living on the street. As long as the shelter is their property and their rules.

 

[RVonse]

Are there enough wealthy people to build enough homes to create a slack in housing supply in the state of California to depress housing costs?

Yes. There are an incredible amount of wealthy people in Los Angeles who have the means to buy and build new homes if the local bureaucracy would get out of their way.

 

[ZiprHead]

“Homeless” numbers increased in Los Angeles.

Strange you never mentioned the numbers when they dropped.

 

[ZiprHead]

Its mostly a problem of drug abuse and mental illness. Even when offered shelter, many homeless refuse them. And how would these people afford a new home built by rich developers anyway? They have no money, and addiction and mental problems that essentially keep them out of the job and housing market.

But yes, we do have a housing shortage overall in this state and more needs to be built. That is largely a separate issue from what is happening on the streets, though.

Most homeless people are homeless simply because they cannot afford rent.

They try to put people in "tiny houses" but the rules are very strict. Absolutely no visitors. No alcohol or drugs, at all. So someone who enjoys an occasional beer or a puff of a legal joint can get thrown out immediately. Who would want to live like that?

 

[robnisch]

Are there enough wealthy people to build enough homes to create a slack in housing supply in the state of California to depress housing costs?

Yes. There are an incredible amount of wealthy people in Los Angeles who have the means to buy and build new homes if the local bureaucracy would get out of their way.

Define "get out of their way".
Do you mean no building codes?
Let them build on the beach?
Let them build on unstable cliffs?

 

[Toni]

Hunter-gatherer is not viable in most modern ecosystems.

Foraged goods are a part of many anthropogenic landscapes even in the modern world. I think what you're trying to say is that it is not possible for the population of, say, a modern metropolis to survive solely off of gathered food. This is true. But rarely are we talking about thousands let alone of people trying to live only in such a fashion. Occasional hunting, fishing, logging, and wild gathering are an important part of life for many people, be they homeless, impoverished, or just inclined to take food and material collection into their own hands, and rarely do they make such an impact on the environment that the government has to intervene. In general, both we and our landscapes would benefit if there were more use of natural resources over industrially produced ones. Periodic hunting of deer, in season, does not cause ecosystemic malfunction, but actually prevents it. Fishing can be a problem, but again, it's rarely if ever individuals throwing a line off the local pier of a weekend who are the greatest threat to our fisheries - that's be environmental degradation, stream pollutants, and overfishing by commercial fleets.

Keyword: "periodic". Most ecosystems can tolerate some harvesting. Most ecosystems can not tolerate year round harvesting.

Depends on what you include in harvesting. Predator species, for example, do an excellent job of helping to maintain ecological balance and a healthy environment. Wolves and mountain cats prey on species year round, for example.

What is detrimental is the commercial harvest of natural resources. And what is also detrimental is humans not being willing to live with the fact that some destructive forces ( fires, floods, predation by predator species) are part of nature and part of the cycle that keeps an ecological system healthy and functioning.

 

[Politesse]

Hunter-gatherer is not viable in most modern ecosystems.

Foraged goods are a part of many anthropogenic landscapes even in the modern world. I think what you're trying to say is that it is not possible for the population of, say, a modern metropolis to survive solely off of gathered food. This is true. But rarely are we talking about thousands let alone of people trying to live only in such a fashion. Occasional hunting, fishing, logging, and wild gathering are an important part of life for many people, be they homeless, impoverished, or just inclined to take food and material collection into their own hands, and rarely do they make such an impact on the environment that the government has to intervene. In general, both we and our landscapes would benefit if there were more use of natural resources over industrially produced ones. Periodic hunting of deer, in season, does not cause ecosystemic malfunction, but actually prevents it. Fishing can be a problem, but again, it's rarely if ever individuals throwing a line off the local pier of a weekend who are the greatest threat to our fisheries - that's be environmental degradation, stream pollutants, and overfishing by commercial fleets.

Keyword: "periodic". Most ecosystems can tolerate some harvesting. Most ecosystems can not tolerate year round harvesting.

Yes. But this has been true for all the millennia that humans have foraged for their subsistence. There are, likewise, both wise and unwise strategies for farming or shopping for subsistence, and most very certainly, correct seasons.

 

[bilby]

The rich would buy the newly constructed home and move out of their existing residence. Then the next slightly less rich person moves into their old place. Then the next slightly less rich person takes their old place. Rinse and repeat until finally there is an older starter type home leftover that is affordable for a homeless person to call his own.

Its called supply vs demand

No it's not. It's called "trickle down", and despite its popularity as a concept amongst rich people who want to pretend that their greed is actually philanthropy, it doesn't actually work.

 

[Politesse]

My favorite California Original for the day is the passage of AB 2760, which if signed by the governor will ban the use of electroshock gloves by law enforcement. I didn't even realize this was a thing, but apparently a great many police agencies across the state have started using them, including at least one school district.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article317083450.html

The Legislature passed a bill prohibiting law enforcement officers from using wearable electroshock devices Monday, sending the measure to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk. Assembly Bill 2760 would extend the prohibition on electroshock gloves to both state and federal law enforcement agents operating in California. If the bill is signed into law, California would be the first state in the U.S. to enact such a ban. The legislation would also prohibit the use of state funds to purchase electroshock gloves and mandate that the California Department of Justice conduct a safety and community impact of the technology. Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, D-San Diego, the bill’s author, said the gloves allow officers to administer multiple electric shocks in one encounter, potentially resulting in deadly outcomes.

It's a procedural complaint, not an issue with the content of the bill, but the "gut and amend" strategy of fast-tracking bills is anti-democratic to my way of thinking, and should be quashed.

 

[RVonse]

Are there enough wealthy people to build enough homes to create a slack in housing supply in the state of California to depress housing costs?

Yes. There are an incredible amount of wealthy people in Los Angeles who have the means to buy and build new homes if the local bureaucracy would get out of their way.

Define "get out of their way".
Do you mean no building codes?
Let them build on the beach?
Let them build on unstable cliffs?

Reasonable building codes with reasonable inspectors. A government that wants to promote more construction instead of less. Which is what republican leadership might bring if it wasn't monopolized by the democratic party.

And as for the extreme limited beach area locations, yes there should be public access. But what should a good governance promote on the beach fronts; homeless people pooping on the sand in tents or the million dollar homes who pay property tax? Because one thing is very certain. When you have all the humanity that is in Los Angeles, something is going to be on those extreme valuable beaches it is just a matter what that something is.

 

[RVonse]

The rich would buy the newly constructed home and move out of their existing residence. Then the next slightly less rich person moves into their old place. Then the next slightly less rich person takes their old place. Rinse and repeat until finally there is an older starter type home leftover that is affordable for a homeless person to call his own.

Its called supply vs demand

No it's not. It's called "trickle down", and despite its popularity as a concept amongst rich people who want to pretend that their greed is actually philanthropy, it doesn't actually work.

No, it is an increase in the supply of housing stock. It might sound like trickle down to you but that is only because the rich people are the only ones with the means to start something good. More million dollar homes mean more housing stock no matter how it is spun otherwise. And more housing stock is what is desperately needed to get everyone's price down to a level that is more affordable. Just like Ford brought prices down when he invented the assembly line.