California Doing California Things

[scombrid]

dogshit red states send their undesirables there

What does that look like?
How do “they send” people?

I was wondering the same thing.

To me it makes sense to go to Cali voluntarily if one is going to be homeless. You won't starve, and you won't freeze to death. Selfish thought, I know, but it is what it is.

That why a lot of them end up in Florida. There is a huge floating homeless camp down in marathon.

 

[thebeave]

What does that look like?
How do “they send” people?

Step 1: Make your state an unliveable hell-hole

God blessed the Bible Belt. Mild temps, fruit growing everywhere …

where thousands are homeless and no one is helping.

Like say, Alabama? Louisiana? They can live outside and eat snakes and gators. It’s not like Maine or North Dakota.

Step 2: Harass homeless people. Arrest them, steal and destroy their property, make being outside a crime. Refuse to investigate when they are victims of a crime. Throw them out of hospitals before they are fully healed.

Ok, check! We have all that stuff covered.

Step 3: Celebrate how hostile the environment you've created is, while complaining about how liberal states don't know how to "handle" the homeless.

Sounds right. Except the celebration part. Recognition might be more appropriate.

Though direct busing is also an option. One which both affects California and is used by California.

Wait, wut?
So … is it a net zero effect?
I’m still not clear on who is sending people and why they can’t be sent.

Yeah, several people here are making the claim that red states are rounding up their homeless and busing (flying?) them to California (or elsewhere). That's news to me and I would like to see the receipts on that. Otherwise, I call BS on that claim. My thoughts are that they are coming here of their own volition via their own vehicle, bus, train or hitchike, etc. Maybe people are confusing homeless busing with those who were illegally crossing the border under Biden and were getting bused to Chicago, New York City, etc. by "Hot Wheels" et al.

 

[Politesse]

What does that look like?
How do “they send” people?

Step 1: Make your state an unliveable hell-hole

God blessed the Bible Belt. Mild temps, fruit growing everywhere …

where thousands are homeless and no one is helping.

Like say, Alabama? Louisiana? They can live outside and eat snakes and gators. It’s not like Maine or North Dakota.

Step 2: Harass homeless people. Arrest them, steal and destroy their property, make being outside a crime. Refuse to investigate when they are victims of a crime. Throw them out of hospitals before they are fully healed.

Ok, check! We have all that stuff covered.

Step 3: Celebrate how hostile the environment you've created is, while complaining about how liberal states don't know how to "handle" the homeless.

Sounds right. Except the celebration part. Recognition might be more appropriate.

Though direct busing is also an option. One which both affects California and is used by California.

Wait, wut?
So … is it a net zero effect?
I’m still not clear on who is sending people and why they can’t be sent.

Yeah, several people here are making the claim that red states are rounding up their homeless and busing (flying?) them to California (or elsewhere). That's news to me and I would like to see the receipts on that. Otherwise, I call BS on that claim. My thoughts are that they are coming here of their own volition via their own vehicle, bus, train or hitchike, etc. Maybe people are confusing homeless busing with those who were illegally crossing the border under Biden and were getting bused to Chicago, New York City, etc. by "Hot Wheels" et al.

How they get here seems unimportant to me. But I guess that's because homelessness seems to me like a problem that should actually be addressed, not just deferred. Of course people who are homeless want to come here voluntarily, I would too. But 700,000 Americans shouldn't be homeless in the first place, and expecting a handful of socially responsible states to bear the expense and anxiety of solitarily addressing a nationwide problem (then shitting on us for being willing to do so) is completely unreasonable.

 

[Elixir]

expecting a handful of socially responsible states to bear the expense and anxiety of solitarily addressing a nationwide problem

Reality is that not many States have such forgiving climates as parts of CA. The expense is to be expected. Harboring the expectation might even help address the anxiety.

 

[Politesse]

expecting a handful of socially responsible states to bear the expense and anxiety of solitarily addressing a nationwide problem

Reality is that not many States have such forgiving climates as parts of CA. The expense is to be expected. Harboring the expectation might even help address the anxiety.

Blaming the weather now now, huh? Anything to avoid accountability for your own state's inactions.

 

[Elixir]

expecting a handful of socially responsible states to bear the expense and anxiety of solitarily addressing a nationwide problem

Reality is that not many States have such forgiving climates as parts of CA. The expense is to be expected. Harboring the expectation might even help address the anxiety.

Blaming the weather now now, huh? Anything to avoid accountability for your own state's inactions.

My state?
Blaming Colorado for “your” homeless?
lol!

 

[Politesse]

expecting a handful of socially responsible states to bear the expense and anxiety of solitarily addressing a nationwide problem

Reality is that not many States have such forgiving climates as parts of CA. The expense is to be expected. Harboring the expectation might even help address the anxiety.

Blaming the weather now now, huh? Anything to avoid accountability for your own state's inactions.

My state?
Blaming Colorado for “your” homeless?
lol!

Nah, Colorado is also a "doer" state.

 

[Toni]

What does that look like?
How do “they send” people?

Step 1: Make your state an unliveable hell-hole

God blessed the Bible Belt. Mild temps, fruit growing everywhere …

where thousands are homeless and no one is helping.

Like say, Alabama? Louisiana? They can live outside and eat snakes and gators. It’s not like Maine or North Dakota.

Step 2: Harass homeless people. Arrest them, steal and destroy their property, make being outside a crime. Refuse to investigate when they are victims of a crime. Throw them out of hospitals before they are fully healed.

Ok, check! We have all that stuff covered.

Step 3: Celebrate how hostile the environment you've created is, while complaining about how liberal states don't know how to "handle" the homeless.

Sounds right. Except the celebration part. Recognition might be more appropriate.

Though direct busing is also an option. One which both affects California and is used by California.

Wait, wut?
So … is it a net zero effect?
I’m still not clear on who is sending people and why they can’t be sent.

Yeah, several people here are making the claim that red states are rounding up their homeless and busing (flying?) them to California (or elsewhere). That's news to me and I would like to see the receipts on that. Otherwise, I call BS on that claim. My thoughts are that they are coming here of their own volition via their own vehicle, bus, train or hitchike, etc. Maybe people are confusing homeless busing with those who were illegally crossing the border under Biden and were getting bused to Chicago, New York City, etc. by "Hot Wheels" et al.

How they get here seems unimportant to me. But I guess that's because homelessness seems to me like a problem that should actually be addressed, not just deferred. Of course people who are homeless want to come here voluntarily, I would too. But 700,000 Americans shouldn't be homeless in the first place, and expecting a handful of socially responsible states to bear the expense and anxiety of solitarily addressing a nationwide problem (then shitting on us for being willing to do so) is completely unreasonable.

No offense but California is one of the highest cost of living states in the US, with housing costs being among the highest in the US. California is also a water hog. How much water does it take to keep an almond tree alive and producing? For all of the very wonderful things about California ( I assume: I’ve never been), California does contribute to its own issues with homelessness, as does every other state.

My state is relatively low cost, falling into the lowest third of US states for cost of living. We have a much smaller population and a much harsher climate—and a homeless issue. As do all states. Yes, people actually come to my state for the quality of life, which is indeed pretty good.

But we still have issues with affordability of housing. Like every other state, we have issues with substance abuse and mental health, both of which contribute to economic instability and housing instability. So do issues such as domestic abuse. This does not even begin to address the issue of economic stability and accessibility of jobs, living wages, health care a salability and accessibility, education, social net infrastructure, transportation.

These are issues that all states, cities ( regardless of size), rural and urban and suburban areas struggle with and must all learn to deal with.

 

[thebeave]

What does that look like?
How do “they send” people?

Step 1: Make your state an unliveable hell-hole

God blessed the Bible Belt. Mild temps, fruit growing everywhere …

where thousands are homeless and no one is helping.

Like say, Alabama? Louisiana? They can live outside and eat snakes and gators. It’s not like Maine or North Dakota.

Step 2: Harass homeless people. Arrest them, steal and destroy their property, make being outside a crime. Refuse to investigate when they are victims of a crime. Throw them out of hospitals before they are fully healed.

Ok, check! We have all that stuff covered.

Step 3: Celebrate how hostile the environment you've created is, while complaining about how liberal states don't know how to "handle" the homeless.

Sounds right. Except the celebration part. Recognition might be more appropriate.

Though direct busing is also an option. One which both affects California and is used by California.

Wait, wut?
So … is it a net zero effect?
I’m still not clear on who is sending people and why they can’t be sent.

Yeah, several people here are making the claim that red states are rounding up their homeless and busing (flying?) them to California (or elsewhere). That's news to me and I would like to see the receipts on that. Otherwise, I call BS on that claim. My thoughts are that they are coming here of their own volition via their own vehicle, bus, train or hitchike, etc. Maybe people are confusing homeless busing with those who were illegally crossing the border under Biden and were getting bused to Chicago, New York City, etc. by "Hot Wheels" et al.

How they get here seems unimportant to me. But I guess that's because homelessness seems to me like a problem that should actually be addressed, not just deferred. Of course people who are homeless want to come here voluntarily, I would too. But 700,000 Americans shouldn't be homeless in the first place, and expecting a handful of socially responsible states to bear the expense and anxiety of solitarily addressing a nationwide problem (then shitting on us for being willing to do so) is completely unreasonable.

No offense but California is one of the highest cost of living states in the US, with housing costs being among the highest in the US. California is also a water hog. How much water does it take to keep an almond tree alive and producing? For all of the very wonderful things about California ( I assume: I’ve never been), California does contribute to its own issues with homelessness, as does every other state.

My state is relatively low cost, falling into the lowest third of US states for cost of living. We have a much smaller population and a much harsher climate—and a homeless issue. As do all states. Yes, people actually come to my state for the quality of life, which is indeed pretty good.

But we still have issues with affordability of housing. Like every other state, we have issues with substance abuse and mental health, both of which contribute to economic instability and housing instability. So do issues such as domestic abuse. This does not even begin to address the issue of economic stability and accessibility of jobs, living wages, health care a salability and accessibility, education, social net infrastructure, transportation.

These are issues that all states, cities ( regardless of size), rural and urban and suburban areas struggle with and must all learn to deal with.

We have discussed the almond water issue before. Much of California's problems are of its own making. Besides water shortages, there is high energy and housing costs. The state has a lot of potential and good things about it, but has been poorly managed for decades.

 

[TSwizzle]

Fourth largest economy in the world

A division of the Los Angeles Police Department on Thursday shined a light on the abhorrent conditions at homeless encampments in a disturbing series of videos posted to social media. LAPD’s Rampart Division shared footage of a recent enforcement action at a sprawling encampment near the intersections of West Olympic Boulevard, Lake Street and West 10th Street. “When people ask why we do enforcement at homeless encampments, this is why,” officers wrote. The videos show tents, tarps, personal belongings and assorted debris blocking the sidewalk and littering an island at the intersection. Perhaps most startling: a swarm of rats can be seen scurrying through the encampment and snacking on trash.

KTLA News

Parts of Los Angeles really do resemble a dystopian hellscape. I am sure similar scenarios exist in other major cities in California.

 

[Toni]

What does that look like?
How do “they send” people?

Step 1: Make your state an unliveable hell-hole

God blessed the Bible Belt. Mild temps, fruit growing everywhere …

where thousands are homeless and no one is helping.

Like say, Alabama? Louisiana? They can live outside and eat snakes and gators. It’s not like Maine or North Dakota.

Step 2: Harass homeless people. Arrest them, steal and destroy their property, make being outside a crime. Refuse to investigate when they are victims of a crime. Throw them out of hospitals before they are fully healed.

Ok, check! We have all that stuff covered.

Step 3: Celebrate how hostile the environment you've created is, while complaining about how liberal states don't know how to "handle" the homeless.

Sounds right. Except the celebration part. Recognition might be more appropriate.

Though direct busing is also an option. One which both affects California and is used by California.

Wait, wut?
So … is it a net zero effect?
I’m still not clear on who is sending people and why they can’t be sent.

Yeah, several people here are making the claim that red states are rounding up their homeless and busing (flying?) them to California (or elsewhere). That's news to me and I would like to see the receipts on that. Otherwise, I call BS on that claim. My thoughts are that they are coming here of their own volition via their own vehicle, bus, train or hitchike, etc. Maybe people are confusing homeless busing with those who were illegally crossing the border under Biden and were getting bused to Chicago, New York City, etc. by "Hot Wheels" et al.

How they get here seems unimportant to me. But I guess that's because homelessness seems to me like a problem that should actually be addressed, not just deferred. Of course people who are homeless want to come here voluntarily, I would too. But 700,000 Americans shouldn't be homeless in the first place, and expecting a handful of socially responsible states to bear the expense and anxiety of solitarily addressing a nationwide problem (then shitting on us for being willing to do so) is completely unreasonable.

No offense but California is one of the highest cost of living states in the US, with housing costs being among the highest in the US. California is also a water hog. How much water does it take to keep an almond tree alive and producing? For all of the very wonderful things about California ( I assume: I’ve never been), California does contribute to its own issues with homelessness, as does every other state.

My state is relatively low cost, falling into the lowest third of US states for cost of living. We have a much smaller population and a much harsher climate—and a homeless issue. As do all states. Yes, people actually come to my state for the quality of life, which is indeed pretty good.

But we still have issues with affordability of housing. Like every other state, we have issues with substance abuse and mental health, both of which contribute to economic instability and housing instability. So do issues such as domestic abuse. This does not even begin to address the issue of economic stability and accessibility of jobs, living wages, health care a salability and accessibility, education, social net infrastructure, transportation.

These are issues that all states, cities ( regardless of size), rural and urban and suburban areas struggle with and must all learn to deal with.

We have discussed the almond water issue before. Much of California's problems are of its own making. Besides water shortages, there is high energy and housing costs. The state has a lot of potential and good things about it, but has been poorly managed for decades.

I believe that every single state plus Washington DC have housing issues. My small town in the middle of bumfuck USA has housing issues. Currently, we are OK with water and should continue to be so except that I've just read that some stupid town upriver has OK'd an enormous data center that will use and pollute water from the river.

I was picking on California a bit because a) I love almonds b) I'm aware that I contribute in a very miniscule way to the water problem in California because I buy almonds and so I am aware of this particular issue in California.

I am not aware of a single state in the union that does not struggle with how to address addiction problems, housing problems and mental health problems, not to mention livable wages and employment issues. Also affordable/accessible healthcare and education and daycare and support for domestic abuse victims (a lot of these issues converge upon one another).

I used to be against a universal basic income but I've come to appreciate just how much that could go towards solving some basic problems for a lot of people, including people I know and some I am related to. We help where we can and struggle to figure out how much is enough and how much is too much with the goal being to never be in the position of imposing that sort of burden on others.

It's pretty easy to look at various individuals I know whose lives could be made much better with UBC that was adequate to provide food and shelter if society as a whole could do a better job re: sorting out health care, including mental health care, affordable housing, etc., addiction services to help overcome and avoid, education including college and trades and jobs training, etc. It seems more efficient than the piecemeal funding that we are able to do as individuals. For one thing, many thousands or millions more than the people I know could genuinely use the help.

We, as a society, just need to decide that it is worth it to invest in people (and the environment) rather than bright shiny golden adornments. I'm on board.

 

[Elixir]

I used to be against a universal basic income but I've come to appreciate just how much that could go towards solving some basic problems for a lot of people, including people I know and some I am related to.

What is infuriating is that if we “took” from the top 1% of earners ‘self net worth increasers’, enough to alleviate homelessness for the bottom 1%, they wouldn’t even feel it. It would be a fourth digit from the left kind of thing. I think it should help the bottom 15% or so, should the amount “taxed” to the top 1% be raised to a level where it had any impact whatsoever upon the mega billionaires’ daily wants and needs.
What we need now is a bit of good old fashioned socialism! No tax havens for the uber- rich, no deductions for loan interest payments against assets (a federal surcharge on such loans above 8-9 digits might be helpful)…
Hell, there is only one billionaire I ever heard of (though I’m sure there are others) who would be penniless if all accounts were settled. Let the rest tough it out with the billions they are already “worth”.

 

[Politesse]

What does that look like?
How do “they send” people?

Step 1: Make your state an unliveable hell-hole

God blessed the Bible Belt. Mild temps, fruit growing everywhere …

where thousands are homeless and no one is helping.

Like say, Alabama? Louisiana? They can live outside and eat snakes and gators. It’s not like Maine or North Dakota.

Step 2: Harass homeless people. Arrest them, steal and destroy their property, make being outside a crime. Refuse to investigate when they are victims of a crime. Throw them out of hospitals before they are fully healed.

Ok, check! We have all that stuff covered.

Step 3: Celebrate how hostile the environment you've created is, while complaining about how liberal states don't know how to "handle" the homeless.

Sounds right. Except the celebration part. Recognition might be more appropriate.

Though direct busing is also an option. One which both affects California and is used by California.

Wait, wut?
So … is it a net zero effect?
I’m still not clear on who is sending people and why they can’t be sent.

Yeah, several people here are making the claim that red states are rounding up their homeless and busing (flying?) them to California (or elsewhere). That's news to me and I would like to see the receipts on that. Otherwise, I call BS on that claim. My thoughts are that they are coming here of their own volition via their own vehicle, bus, train or hitchike, etc. Maybe people are confusing homeless busing with those who were illegally crossing the border under Biden and were getting bused to Chicago, New York City, etc. by "Hot Wheels" et al.

How they get here seems unimportant to me. But I guess that's because homelessness seems to me like a problem that should actually be addressed, not just deferred. Of course people who are homeless want to come here voluntarily, I would too. But 700,000 Americans shouldn't be homeless in the first place, and expecting a handful of socially responsible states to bear the expense and anxiety of solitarily addressing a nationwide problem (then shitting on us for being willing to do so) is completely unreasonable.

No offense but California is one of the highest cost of living states in the US, with housing costs being among the highest in the US. California is also a water hog. How much water does it take to keep an almond tree alive and producing? For all of the very wonderful things about California ( I assume: I’ve never been), California does contribute to its own issues with homelessness, as does every other state.

My state is relatively low cost, falling into the lowest third of US states for cost of living. We have a much smaller population and a much harsher climate—and a homeless issue. As do all states. Yes, people actually come to my state for the quality of life, which is indeed pretty good.

But we still have issues with affordability of housing. Like every other state, we have issues with substance abuse and mental health, both of which contribute to economic instability and housing instability. So do issues such as domestic abuse. This does not even begin to address the issue of economic stability and accessibility of jobs, living wages, health care a salability and accessibility, education, social net infrastructure, transportation.

These are issues that all states, cities ( regardless of size), rural and urban and suburban areas struggle with and must all learn to deal with.

We have discussed the almond water issue before. Much of California's problems are of its own making. Besides water shortages, there is high energy and housing costs. The state has a lot of potential and good things about it, but has been poorly managed for decades.

I believe that every single state plus Washington DC have housing issues. My small town in the middle of bumfuck USA has housing issues. Currently, we are OK with water and should continue to be so except that I've just read that some stupid town upriver has OK'd an enormous data center that will use and pollute water from the river.

I was picking on California a bit because a) I love almonds b) I'm aware that I contribute in a very miniscule way to the water problem in California because I buy almonds and so I am aware of this particular issue in California.

I am not aware of a single state in the union that does not struggle with how to address addiction problems, housing problems and mental health problems, not to mention livable wages and employment issues. Also affordable/accessible healthcare and education and daycare and support for domestic abuse victims (a lot of these issues converge upon one another).

I used to be against a universal basic income but I've come to appreciate just how much that could go towards solving some basic problems for a lot of people, including people I know and some I am related to. We help where we can and struggle to figure out how much is enough and how much is too much with the goal being to never be in the position of imposing that sort of burden on others.

It's pretty easy to look at various individuals I know whose lives could be made much better with UBC that was adequate to provide food and shelter if society as a whole could do a better job re: sorting out health care, including mental health care, affordable housing, etc., addiction services to help overcome and avoid, education including college and trades and jobs training, etc. It seems more efficient than the piecemeal funding that we are able to do as individuals. For one thing, many thousands or millions more than the people I know could genuinely use the help.

We, as a society, just need to decide that it is worth it to invest in people (and the environment) rather than bright shiny golden adornments. I'm on board.

THAT is the real point here. Pointing fingers about what various states "do with their homeless" is not just dehumanizing and cruel, it is also a dangerously convenient diversion from addressing why homelessness is universally prevalent in our country.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

dogshit red states send their undesirables there

What does that look like?
How do “they send” people?
States don’t send people, people send people. Who are these people and what mechanisms do they employ to “send” people hither and yon? And why can’t WE send THEM to some shithole state like Mississippi?

Usually they give them a one way bus ticket.

As for why L.A. doesn't ship them out, my guess is that California adheres to the various laws against shipping people out against their will and/or with the purposes of not providing for that person once they reach the destination. Red states simply don't care about that because they never suffer the legal consequences for it.

As for the "people send "people" comment, just stop it. You know damn well what I'm talking about.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

THAT is the real point here. Pointing fingers about what various states "do with their homeless" is not just dehumanizing and cruel, it is also a dangerously convenient diversion from addressing why homelessness is universally prevalent in our country.

It's not dehumanizing. The point is that when red states have to deal with the entirety of their homeless population, they'll be more likely to take measures to fix it. If they don't, they'll suffer the same consequences that states like California do. It's also vile to diminish the problem by making it someone else's problem.

I've already posted the statistics regarding just how many homeless people in SoCal there are from other states.

Finally, the homeless issue isn't just about the homeless. It's about how everyone else is affected by it. Everyone should be housed and everyone should be able to access real treatment when they need it, but people should also have the right to not have their cities and business ruined either.

The answer is forced housing and forced treatment, but that will never happen for reasons I've stated here at least a dozen times.

 

[Politesse]

dogshit red states send their undesirables there

What does that look like?
How do “they send” people?
States don’t send people, people send people. Who are these people and what mechanisms do they employ to “send” people hither and yon? And why can’t WE send THEM to some shithole state like Mississippi?

Usually they give them a one way bus ticket.

As for why L.A. doesn't ship them out, my guess is that California adheres to the various laws against shipping people out against their will and/or with the purposes of not providing for that person once they reach the destination. Red states simply don't care about that because they never suffer the legal consequences for it.

As for the "people send "people" comment, just stop it. You know damn well what I'm talking about.

Nope, we have a free ticketing program here too. Supposedly homeless people are only "helped along" to places they already have family, a job, etc, but investigations into the program have uncovered some pretty serious lapses on that front. There isn't much follow-up. Here in the Central Valley where I live, unhomed persons are often "helped" to get here from San Francisco or San Jose, winter here, then migrate back to the Bay Area in the summer, when the boiling heat makes homeless life here more difficult and dangerous.

 

[Politesse]

It's not dehumanizing. The point is that when red states have to deal with the entirety of their homeless population, they'll be more likely to take measures to fix it. If they don't, they'll suffer the same consequences that states like California do. It's also vile to diminish the problem by making it someone else's problem.

Reducing a human being's entire life to the "problem" it is causing for people who are offended by the sight of them is dehumanizing. There is no way to credibly call that empathy.

If someone accused you of "ruining their city" (your words) merely by existing, would you feel humanized by that exchange? Would you feel respected, having been described that way?

 

[Toni]

THAT is the real point here. Pointing fingers about what various states "do with their homeless" is not just dehumanizing and cruel, it is also a dangerously convenient diversion from addressing why homelessness is universally prevalent in our country.

It's not dehumanizing. The point is that when red states have to deal with the entirety of their homeless population, they'll be more likely to take measures to fix it. If they don't, they'll suffer the same consequences that states like California do. It's also vile to diminish the problem by making it someone else's problem.

I've already posted the statistics regarding just how many homeless people in SoCal there are from other states.

Finally, the homeless issue isn't just about the homeless. It's about how everyone else is affected by it. Everyone should be housed and everyone should be able to access real treatment when they need it, but people should also have the right to not have their cities and business ruined either.

The answer is forced housing and forced treatment, but that will never happen for reasons I've stated here at least a dozen times.

I'm not sure what you mean? Red states and blue states both have homeless populations of people---some of what we have come to accept: those dealing with (or failing to deal with) substance abuse issues and those with serious mental illness. But periodically and increasingly commonly, we have a population of people whose housing is insecure despite the fact that they are employed, often full time. And of course there are those who have a variety of disabilities that make them not employable. These are, in fact, distributed across the country, red, blue and purple states, cities, small towns, suburbs, rural areas.

I live in a mostly blue/purplish state that, despite its much harsher climate than California, sees an influx of homeless people in addition to those who were born or grew up in our state. I don't have numbers. I would wager a guess that some very warm weather states such as FL have an influx of homeless from other states because of milder weather. Shit, wealthy people and middle class people move to or have second homes in places where they find the climate easier to bear. I'm not certain we can stop that. I would like to see foreign corporations --and corporations in general be severely limited in the number of residences they can own and rent out. Yes, I'm talking about Airbnb and VRBO (and I will be staying in one of those when we go on vacation) because they don't just remove a house or apartment from the pool of available homes, they generally gussy them up to make them appealing to renters and drive up the price of homes in the area, effectively pricing locals of modest and not so modest means out of the market altogether. Businesses struggle to attract employees because they cannot afford to pay wages that support rents/mortgages of $2-3K/month or more. In addition to utilities.

Many, many of these people would truly like to have stable housing that provides them with a genuine home, not just temporary shelter. Some small fraction of the population who are unhoused frankly do not wish to live in shelters, etc.

While I think we will always need temporary housing: shelters, these cannot be long term (beyond a few months) solution for those who are unhoused. And most are not suitable for families. AND we must recognize that some of the unhoused population is without a home because they are fleeing an abusive situation, either a romantic relationship gone bad, or because of mental illness or because of not being accepted by family because they are LGBTQ+, or otherwise not conforming well to their family's expectations to the extent that the situation is not tenable.

 

[TSwizzle]

It's not dehumanizing. The point is that when red states have to deal with the entirety of their homeless population, they'll be more likely to take measures to fix it. If they don't, they'll suffer the same consequences that states like California do. It's also vile to diminish the problem by making it someone else's problem.

Reducing a human being's entire life to the "problem" it is causing for people who are offended by the sight of them is dehumanizing. There is no way to credibly call that empathy.

If someone accused you of "ruining their city" (your words) merely by existing, would you feel humanized by that exchange? Would you feel respected, having been described that way?

lol, it's not the sight of them that is offensive, silly goose. It's them taking a shit on your doorstep that is offensive.

You have no interest in helping these people. You, Bass and Newsom use them as a punishment for normal people.

 

[Politesse]

It's not dehumanizing. The point is that when red states have to deal with the entirety of their homeless population, they'll be more likely to take measures to fix it. If they don't, they'll suffer the same consequences that states like California do. It's also vile to diminish the problem by making it someone else's problem.

Reducing a human being's entire life to the "problem" it is causing for people who are offended by the sight of them is dehumanizing. There is no way to credibly call that empathy.

If someone accused you of "ruining their city" (your words) merely by existing, would you feel humanized by that exchange? Would you feel respected, having been described that way?

lol, it's not the sight of them that is offensive, silly goose. It's them taking a shit on your doorstep that is offensive.

You have no interest in helping these people. You, Bass and Newsom use them as a punishment for normal people.

You keep saying that, but the two institutions I work for are both an integral part of educating and housing homeless citizens before and after they become homeless. Whereas you do nothing, mock those who do do anything, and refuse to offer any sort of a clear plan of your own. You see why your baseless and inaccurate insults rather fail to land, from my perspective?