LA considers giving homeless population homes

[Shofercia]

For 57,000 people, while the budget is being tightened? Take a guess.

No way they actually house all of them.

Did a moderator just respond to a post of mine? Hang on, I gotta take a screenshot of this. As for housing, if it's done on a county level, it's very doable. Can a city of 1,000, house 6 homeless folks? If so, why can't a county of 10,000,000 house 60,000 homeless folks? Especially if they're homieless.

[Shofercia]

I'm in favor of this, provided the most cost efficient forms of housing are pursued. The housing given doesn't necessarily have to be of nice quality. I recommend shipping containers or military style barracks that hold 200+ or so in one room, with 3 story high bunk beds in grid formation in this one huge building.

Might as well put them in camps then.

I'd prefer a camp over a shipping container: https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/us/san-a ... index.html

Crowded inside of the boiling tractor-trailer, they took turns taking breaths from a hole in the semi. Some fainted. Others banged on the wall to get the driver's attention but he kept going, one man who survived the journey told federal authorities. The driver, James Matthew Bradley Jr. told federal investigators he had no idea dozens of undocumented immigrants were stuffed inside tractor-trailer he was hauling. The 60-year-old Florida man was charged Monday with knowingly transporting undocumented immigrants.

The assistant public federal defender who is representing Bradley couldn't be reached for comment.
The tractor-trailer was found parked at a Walmart in San Antonio early Sunday morning after an employee at the store called police. Authorities found dozens of undocumented immigrants inside. Eight people in the truck were already dead, and two more died after being hospitalized. Dozens more were severely injured, and many will suffer from "irreversible brain damage," the city's fire chief said.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Tra ... 648170.php

On a desolate stretch of south Texas highway, sheriff's deputies responding to a routine disturbance call discovered a tableau of horror early Wednesday morning: the bodies of 17 people, most of them believed to be illegal Mexican immigrants, sprawled in and around a trailer at a roadside truck stop. An 18th person recovered from the trailer died later in the day, making it the most lethal incident involving suspected illegal immigrants in at least 16 years. Wednesday afternoon, federal authorities arrested a man suspected to have been the driver of the tractor-trailer rig, which he had apparently abandoned about 175 miles north of the Mexican border on U.S. Highway 77.

[USS Monitor]

No way they actually house all of them.

Did a moderator just respond to a post of mine? Hang on, I gotta take a screenshot of this.

Mods are players too, and we sometimes post just to talk to people.

As for housing, if it's done on a county level, it's very doable. Can a city of 1,000, house 6 homeless folks? If so, why can't a county of 10,000,000 house 60,000 homeless folks? Especially if they're homieless.

Bureaucracy and crap always get in the way, and I just have no faith that LA cares enough to actually follow through and house all of them.

[Shofercia]

Did a moderator just respond to a post of mine? Hang on, I gotta take a screenshot of this.

Mods are players too, and we sometimes post just to talk to people.

As for housing, if it's done on a county level, it's very doable. Can a city of 1,000, house 6 homeless folks? If so, why can't a county of 10,000,000 house 60,000 homeless folks? Especially if they're homieless.

Bureaucracy and crap always get in the way, and I just have no faith that LA cares enough to actually follow through and house all of them.

I was just wondering if the capability was there. Anyways, thanks to California's little rebellion, and Trump's (or rather Sessions') overreaction to said rebellion, we're not getting the ganja tax boost to our economy, and as a result certain services are underfunded, like the homeless service.

[Cannot think of a name]

It's interesting to see just how broad the political spectrum is among the posters supporting this, I'm actually pleasantly surprised so many right-wingers support this.
I think this thread needs a poll honestly.

Technically a repulican idea, it was introduced in Salt Lake City by republicans. Granted 'dirty hippies' have been saying it for years, but we never had to actually work out the logistics. But we're not going to ditch a good idea because the wrong initial proposed it. That'd be silly.

[Cannot think of a name]

No way they actually house all of them.

Did a moderator just respond to a post of mine? Hang on, I gotta take a screenshot of this. As for housing, if it's done on a county level, it's very doable. Can a city of 1,000, house 6 homeless folks? If so, why can't a county of 10,000,000 house 60,000 homeless folks? Especially if they're homieless.

One reform that probably isn't even legal would be repurposing or eminent domaining unused properties. There are a lot of them in California, foreign investment in real estate that doesn't want to bother with rental maintenance and the like is common. Chained up houses waiting for gentrification to inflate the land values.

There's probably a sound legal reason you can't prevent that, I don't know what it is. But adding that inventory would provide housing and hopefully push prices back towards reasonable. What you have to make just rent a studio is ridiculous.

[Ifreann]

Quick question: if LA decides to prove homes for the homeless, what's to stop more homeless from coming to LA? Wouldn't it be smarter to address the causes of homelessness, and homielessness, on a state wide level?

Or the federal level.

---

Quick question: if LA decides to prove homes for the homeless, what's to stop more homeless from coming to LA? Wouldn't it be smarter to address the causes of homelessness, and homielessness, on a state wide level?

How would they know about it and have the means to get to LA?

Walk? Sure two thousand miles is nothing.

[Saiwania]

Why, though?

People in general, don't want to give the homeless nice things, they're bound to trash the place or give it excessive wear and tear if they have no personal stake in it and they didn't buy or rent the space with their own money. They're in a "better than nothing" situation, so it is normal to only get them the lowest tier of "hand me down" items or property. Shipping containers would hold up better than cardboard boxes but would be cheaper than an actual house devoted to just them.

The best arrangement is to probably build an actual barracks or prison just for them, only a building they're allowed to come and go during certain hours. All they basically need beyond food, water, and shelter, is a place to take care of their oral and personal hygiene, do laundry, and have the means to job hunt or improve their employability via something like a public library.

To my knowledge, there does exist cellular service for very low to no income people and smartphones are getting cheap enough as to enable most people to get internet at least for some portion of each day, if they find public wireless. Won't be nice enough for video or fancy stuff, but enough for job websites or maybe learning something that is more valued in today's economy.

[Shofercia]

Did a moderator just respond to a post of mine? Hang on, I gotta take a screenshot of this. As for housing, if it's done on a county level, it's very doable. Can a city of 1,000, house 6 homeless folks? If so, why can't a county of 10,000,000 house 60,000 homeless folks? Especially if they're homieless.

One reform that probably isn't even legal would be repurposing or eminent domaining unused properties. There are a lot of them in California, foreign investment in real estate that doesn't want to bother with rental maintenance and the like is common. Chained up houses waiting for gentrification to inflate the land values.

There's probably a sound legal reason you can't prevent that, I don't know what it is. But adding that inventory would provide housing and hopefully push prices back towards reasonable. What you have to make just rent a studio is ridiculous.

Yes, there are a lot of empty homes in California - here's the issue: most of them are in cities like Victorville, where locals are already struggling to make ends meet. It's also really hot there in the Summer, and there are no jobs. Keep in mind that a 5% turnover is normal, so you'd have to do that in places where the vacancies are above 5%, otherwise you're deflating home equity. A lot of the Victorville-style houses are owned by the banks, as a result of the 2008 crash. You can probably re-purpose those - but how would you ensure that the homeless would be able to pay at least the minimum rent, or utilities. Because I'm just not seeing banks paying the rent for the homeless.

Quick question: if LA decides to prove homes for the homeless, what's to stop more homeless from coming to LA? Wouldn't it be smarter to address the causes of homelessness, and homielessness, on a state wide level?

Or the federal level.

There's just one tiny flaw in that plan: you'd have to get Congressmen to care about the homeless. Have fun with that.

[The Liberated Territories]

How are they going to do this? Social housing?

[Mike the Progressive]

I think if we took the homeless from the streets of LA, from the city of good ol' Watts, from the city of Compton, where we keep it rockin, from diego to the bay, and send them to Mexico... the world will be a better place.

[Mushet]

Do those SRO Hotels count? They've been around for a while in Skid Row but I guess they can't house them all. I was actually a janitor at a couple of them, seemed like a good set up.

I do wonder about a parking structure type set up where they can set up tents, and they'd still be living in tents, but there will be security guards, real bathrooms and showers, and maybe some communal kitchens. They won't really be housed but they'll have the amenities and it seems cheaper and gets them off the streets. I don't know if this idea would ever get taken seriously though.

[Kubumba Tribe]

I think if we took the homeless from the streets of LA, from the city of good ol' Watts, from the city of Compton, where we keep it rockin, from diego to the bay, and send them to Mexico... the world will be a better place.

Except Mexico.
Maybe this is a joke, but still, no.

[Fartsniffage]

How are they going to do this? Social housing?

I assume they'll just find republicans with spare rooms and force them to take in a hobo.

[Mike the Progressive]

I think if we took the homeless from the streets of LA, from the city of good ol' Watts, from the city of Compton, where we keep it rockin, from diego to the bay, and send them to Mexico... the world will be a better place.

Except Mexico.
Maybe this is a joke, but still, no.

Oh you saying homeless people make things worst off? h8er gonna h8

[Hammer Britannia]

A better measure would be to find out and eliminate the causes of homelessness.

Nah

We should eliminate the homeless

We need something to make Soylent Green out of.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Except Mexico.
Maybe this is a joke, but still, no.

Oh you saying homeless people make things worst off? h8er gonna h8

Yeah, sure /s
No, I'm saying that that proposal is bad because you don't just send your own countrymen over to another country just because you're too lazy to care for them.
"You" and "you're" are being used generally here, not personally.

[Mike the Progressive]

Oh you saying homeless people make things worst off? h8er gonna h8

Yeah, sure /s
No, I'm saying that that proposal is bad because you don't just send your own countrymen over to another country just because you're too lazy to care for them.
"You" and "you're" are being used generally here, not personally.

Listen, I am not sending anybody over anywhere. And what do you mean by you countrymen? Do not make this a race thing, sir. I will make it rain pots of gold all over your buick.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Yeah, sure /s
No, I'm saying that that proposal is bad because you don't just send your own countrymen over to another country just because you're too lazy to care for them.
"You" and "you're" are being used generally here, not personally.

Listen, I am not sending anybody over anywhere. And what do you mean by you countrymen? Do not make this a race thing, sir. I will make it rain pots of gold all over your buick.

Countrymen =/= race
And who's gonna send homeless people over the border then?

[Cedoria]

A better measure would be to find out and eliminate the causes of homelessness.

I would've thought not having a home was probably the major cause of homelessness, wouldn't you?

[Mike the Progressive]

Listen, I am not sending anybody over anywhere. And what do you mean by you countrymen? Do not make this a race thing, sir. I will make it rain pots of gold all over your buick.

Countrymen =/= race
And who's gonna send homeless people over the border then?

The other homeless with the promise of homes in return. It's a never ending cycle like mailmen and their mail.

[The Free Joy State]

Why, though?

People in general, don't want to give the homeless nice things, they're bound to trash the place or give it excessive wear and tear if they have no personal stake in it and they didn't buy or rent the space with their own money. They're in a "better than nothing" situation, so it is normal to only get them the lowest tier of "hand me down" items or property. Shipping containers would hold up better than cardboard boxes but would be cheaper than an actual house devoted to just them.

The best arrangement is to probably build an actual barracks or prison just for them, only a building they're allowed to come and go during certain hours. All they basically need beyond food, water, and shelter, is a place to take care of their oral and personal hygiene, do laundry, and have the means to job hunt or improve their employability via something like a public library.

To my knowledge, there does exist cellular service for very low to no income people and smartphones are getting cheap enough as to enable most people to get internet at least for some portion of each day, if they find public wireless. Won't be nice enough for video or fancy stuff, but enough for job websites or maybe learning something that is more valued in today's economy.

A prison for the homeless?

I imagine people may feel degraded by being forced onto the streets, so packing them into stark barracks and degrading people further won't help.

Your solution has a very workhouse quality to it: large wards, basic food, and everyone tugging their forelock for the workhouse Master and being grateful for a crumb. I imagine that most people now - as many, as I seem to remember reading, did back then - would prefer life on the streets to an unfeeling, utilitarian existance with no freedom or compassion.

As for your idea the newly housed will trash any home given to them, purely because they didn't pay for it... My mind boggles as to why anyone would think anyone would throw away a chance at a genuinely better life. For what possible reason would they have?

We don't pay for Christmas/birthday/[insert other celebration here] gifts, but we don't set out to destroy them when we get them.

Where this scheme has been tried elsewhere, 84% of homeless people given a home (no strings) were still housed by the end of one year. These people weren't given a container and told to, effectively "like or lump it". They were given a range of apartments and houses, and given support to work through the problems that had led to homelessness with no pressure. Over the first five years, some cities experienced up to a 70% reduction in homelessness.

NSG, are the proposals being bandied around Southern California, according to the CBS article, worthwhile? Or are they a waste of time and resources? How should we be addressing the crisis of homelessness?

TL;DR answer: Good for Southern California. Hope they go through with the proposals. We should be doing it in the UK.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I like homes

[Mujahidah]

I like homes

H O T T A K E

[Ifreann]

One reform that probably isn't even legal would be repurposing or eminent domaining unused properties. There are a lot of them in California, foreign investment in real estate that doesn't want to bother with rental maintenance and the like is common. Chained up houses waiting for gentrification to inflate the land values.

There's probably a sound legal reason you can't prevent that, I don't know what it is. But adding that inventory would provide housing and hopefully push prices back towards reasonable. What you have to make just rent a studio is ridiculous.

Yes, there are a lot of empty homes in California - here's the issue: most of them are in cities like Victorville, where locals are already struggling to make ends meet. It's also really hot there in the Summer, and there are no jobs. Keep in mind that a 5% turnover is normal, so you'd have to do that in places where the vacancies are above 5%, otherwise you're deflating home equity. A lot of the Victorville-style houses are owned by the banks, as a result of the 2008 crash. You can probably re-purpose those - but how would you ensure that the homeless would be able to pay at least the minimum rent, or utilities. Because I'm just not seeing banks paying the rent for the homeless.

Or the federal level.

There's just one tiny flaw in that plan: you'd have to get Congressmen to care about the homeless. Have fun with that.

I'll pass a message to George Soros.