Here's a different look at the homeless in Los Angeles:
Over the course of more than a decade, LA has managed to add 6,000 shelter beds for the homeless. That's about 10% of the 55,000 needed. Last year they added 1,100, about 2% of what's needed.
19 thoughts on “Building homeless shelters in LA is all but impossible”
Comments are closed.
Building more homeless shelters will just attract more homeless people. How many of LA's homeless were born in LA?
Do a little googling. A very recent UC study put that number at 75%
After a bit of searching I came across: https://laist.com/news/los-angeles-homeless-demographic-race-gender which does have a 75% figure, but for percentage who were living in LA before becoming homeless, but doesn’t go so far as to say born there.
Good correction
I want to quote the whole paragraph, because it says much more than that:
"Sixty-five percent of the homeless people in Los Angeles County have lived in L.A. County for more than 20 years, according to LAHSA's 2018 demographic survey. Three-quarters have lived in L.A. County for more than 10 years. Only about 20 percent of the homeless people in Los Angeles County have lived here for fewer five years."
It’s amazing how many thoroughly useless people there are in the world. I’m one of them, but at least I managed to keep myself employed and housed. Sooner or later people will leave these cities and then the homeless will take over the old buildings. Or… there will be concentration camps built to house them. Out away from the “civilized” world.
Soylent Green? Or if it is old people, Soylent Gray?
I’ll wait for the republicans to figure out the recipe. They have this weird obsession with fetuses which will probably keep the old people safe for a while.
The homeless will just continue to accumulate and take over larger and larger spaces in urban areas until everyone else just leaves.
LOL! Yeah, that's what they were saying back in 1877, during the great tramp scare. Didn't happen then, either.
You've seen the move Elysium, right?
So is the opposite also true? If you don't build any housing for homeless people, do they just move away or disappear? Cause I think there are plenty of places that do absolutely nothing for the homeless and yet they still have homeless people...
"...Cause I think there are plenty of places that do absolutely nothing for the homeless and yet they still have homeless people..."
Seems like you hear about them most in places run by liberal Democrats like San Francisco.
Yes, because that’s the message pushed by conservative media like Faux News. In fact, there are unhoused people everywhere, but (1) big cities are both more likely to get media coverage and to be run by Democrats, and (2) cities run by Democrats are more likely to provide services needed by the homeless, and practice less-punitive policies.
That's because places run by liberal Democrats are wealthy and everyone goes where the money is
I can make two hundred bucks an hour working on my home computer. I never thought it was possible, but my closest friend made seventeen thousand bucks in just five weeks working on this historic project. convinced me to take part. For more information,
Click on the link below... https://GetDreamJobs1.blogspot.com
This is the dumbest thing people say about shelters for the homeless.
Housing isn’t enough.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/01/we-are-seen-as-less-human-inside-marseilles-quartiers-that-the-police-have-abandoned
People with nothing to do. Nothing to contribute. No work except as criminals.
Downing said that another attraction is that in such a discriminatory society, the criminal underworld of Marseille operates as a comparative meritocracy. “Unlike French society that will look down on you for being an Arab, or black, in the criminal world, as long as you’re a decent thief, you’re a decent thief,” he said.
There is no solution.
Inertia and apathy.
When Dobbs was overturned, I was struck by how little reaction there was in real life. You could have done a split screen of talking heads exploding while streets remained calm and most people went on about their business accepting the new normal. Even the midterms were a mixed bag. Most people kind of cared but not in an overwhelming national movement kind of way.
When Musk took over Twitter and really started to pour gasoline on it, I was again struck by how it mattered so much to talking heads and people in tech, but IRL it barely budged people off the platform. The inconvenience of learning new things and re-growing one's presence was far too much friction for people while the spread of hate, spam, and disruptions were tolerable. You, KD, are stuck there for forever, I think.
Tracking the Wagner Group's takeover of Rostov on Don and its march to Moscow, I was also struck by videos and photos of people just going about their daily business. A street sweeper carried on with work in front of the Southern Military District headquarters with tanks and personnel prepared for a shootout. Others sat around drinking coffee while perusing their phones for news.
Climate change hasn't slowed down. We've clearly hit some tipping points, though no one's willing to concede them on account of fairy dust that shall be sprinkled and society will change its ways abruptly, leading to a massive drop in emissions, right?
Houselessness didn't pop up overnight. It exploded during the 2008 Great Recession, and kept growing following the very slow recovery. More tents popped up, followed by more the next year. It's been 15 years, yeah?
Inertia and apathy -- I care, but not enough.
Well, there isn’t any policy connection that I have see between setting a minimum wage and making sure that enough housing exists to goad people who can’t make more than the minimum wage.
You don’t, at least I don’t, see much written about the “working homeless”. I mean, from a policy perspective the number of working homeless ought to be zero.
It’s probably in the study someone cited above, which I am now going to check.
We also ought to have a surplus of section 8 housing, not a ten year wait for goodness sakes