The naivete of the LA Times editorial board is stunning:
Here are two heartening things that happened in the past few weeks: the passage of Measure ULA, which will provide hundreds of millions of dollars annually to build affordable housing and prevent homelessness, and the election of Karen Bass, a smart, experienced leader, as the next mayor of Los Angeles.
....Although Bass, as a candidate, never took a position on the ULA measure, it will be the greatest gift she could get as she takes office....According to a just-released survey, city voters have given the mayor-elect a clear mandate to do whatever is necessary to succeed at the most daunting task she faces — substantially reducing homelessness in a city where 42,000 people were unhoused at the last count earlier this year.
Bass never took a position on ULA because she's a smart, experienced leader who knows perfectly well that it's useless. This is because the voters of Los Angeles didn't give her a "clear mandate to do whatever is necessary" to clean up homelessness or build affordable housing.
What they gave her was a clear mandate to do anything she wants as long as it's someplace else. They may have told a survey taker that they were willing to have a homeless shelter in their neighborhood, but that's laughably idle. The only question that would have meant anything is Are you willing to have a homeless shelter next door? And even that wouldn't mean much. It's a survey, people!
The truth is that ULA is more a problem than an opportunity for Bass. Los Angeles has a weak mayor system that gives her very little authority to do anything about homelessness. What's more, ULA funding is distributed by the LA Housing Department and overseen by a special 15-person committee. The mayor appoints some of these people, but that's about it. Long story short, voters think Bass has the power to address homelessness but in reality she has very little.
Here's what it would take to address homelessness in LA. First, you need money. That's done. Second, you need the mayor to present a new statute to the city council that essentially gives her sole and absolute power to approve and fund housing and homeless shelters anywhere she wants. Third, LA needs a mayor willing to serve only one term, since any mayor who built the kind of shelters the city needs—with the kind of rules that would actually attract the homeless—would be signing their own death warrant.
This statute would also have to wind its way through court, where it would most likely be struck down. But you never know! Maybe the courts are tired of this stuff too and would deem it constitutional.
In any case, that's what it would take: money and the power to use it. It's the second thing that no mayor has ever had, which is why LA has such a pitiful record of fighting homelessness.
Whoa there cowboy. I guess Kevin got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
30 years ago I was a reporter in Los Angeles writing about, among other things, the homelessness problem. The argument you're having today is the same as the argument Los Angeles was having 30 years ago. The problems underlying homelessness are the same -- the combination of a warm and sunny climate that attracts people, a strong NIMBY political force that prevents the construction of dense urban housing, and an even stronger NIMBY force against building shelters and providing services to homeless. It's hard to see a solution in the near future.
My cousin could genuinely get cash in their extra time on their PC. their dearest companion had been doing this 4 somewhere around a year and at this point cleared the obligation. in their smaller than usual house and purchased an extraordinary Vehicle.
That is our specialty. http://www.richsalaries55.blogspot.com/
I think this overstates Angeleno concerns about homeless shelters in my backyard (HSIMBY).
I can only speak for myself. It's rare to go to the store or get on the freeway without passing some homeless in our corner of L.A. (20+ miles from downtown). The problem is most visible when it rains and the freeway underpasses get crowded with people in tents. I think my neighbors and I wouldn't mind a shelter in our backyard. The homeless are here anyway, and we'd rather have them safe under a roof than on the streets.
YIMBY folks think NIMBY folks have shut down all development. All I can see is building going on all around, with thousands of new apartments going up, much of it near shopping and our local transit hub.
I don't expect Bass will solve the homeless problem. But I'd like to think vast improvement is possible. We'll see.
All I can see is building going on all around, with thousands of new apartments going up, much of it near shopping and our local transit hub.
You can't judge based on your eyes. The data unequivocally show California—Los Angeles very much included—builds a lot less housing than it used to. Some of this ironically is tied to a sharp slowdown in population growth—you don't need as much housing when your population is shrinking*—but why would California be shrinking? Did crime shoot up? No, crime's a lot lower than it was 40 or 50 years ago. Did it suddenly get cold and rainy? Did it lose all its high paying jobs? Again, no: clearly the state remains a place with nice weather and very high wages.
Obviously a prime driver of California's plunge from rapid population growth to population contraction* is lack of affordable housing. I doubt for even one American in ten, moving to the Golden State is a rational economic move once housing costs are taken into consideration. Increasingly that's the case for immigrants, too.
*I expect California will resume population growth before too long: the actual contraction was partly pandemic-driven (foreign immigration plunged). Still, from here on out California's population growth, during those years when it actually manages to expand, is likely to look a lot like growth in the Northeast or Midwest. Indeed, the Los Angeles CSA grew more slowly than either Philadelphia or Boston during the 2010s, and Metro DC has been growing faster than LA since probably the mid 90s.
For 10 years I lived 1,000 feet from a large homeless encampment that was under a freeway (I-405). There were 4 shootings, constant collection of garbage, mentally ill people shouting at the sky, and theft. It was a nightmare.
I did tech support at an apartment and we had perimeter footage of a homeless person taking a bike out of the building. Crisp picture and we knew where she hung out (the aforementioned camp). Called the police. They did nothing. They would only act if we had footage *from inside the apartment* of the bike being stolen. When we asked if they could go to the camp and get the bike back, they said they couldn't without a warrant.
The thief returned and entered the apartment 5 times the next day. Got past gated garage entrance (easy) and waited for a door to open. At a minimum, that was trespassing, but the police wouldn't do a thing.
Many homeless deserve support but the big problem is ... the "problem" homeless. That's what people complain about, not those quietly living in a tent without being surrounded by junk. Three weeks ago I got a panic call from a 75 year old at a bus stop. Two homeless guys were menacing her, and would I pick her up (I did and told her to call me anytime).
Homeless advocates repeatedly fail to categorize the homeless, and instead present them as all meritorious. That is a lie.
One solution that people are taking is living in gated communities, and it works. No homeless. But you know who can't live in gated communities? The poor. They are most likely to be in a neighborhood where the space surrounding them is "public" (i.e. city property) which means homeless can set up anywhere and do anything they want.
Poor families often curtail their children's access outdoors so that there is limited risk of harassment.
Here's the real reason little is done about the homeless: A significant number of pro-homeless politicians view them as a colorful element of a diverse city - like the favelas in Brazil. They do not want them off the streets.
Side note: homeless advocates present them if they don't have agency. Friend saw a guy take a dump on the sidewalk in trendy Venice. If you are going to defecate on the street, I expect you to be prosecuted just like any other person.
So, it takes an authoritarian mayor.
Didn't Gore Vidal have a model for some such benevolent autocratic leader?
A rational housing solution is one thing. There also has to be a massive expansion of mental health treatment infrastructure -- both inpatient and outpatient facilities, therapists, nurses, psychiatrists, etc. The vast, vast majority of homeless individuals are mentally ill, drug addicted, or both, which is why they're unhoused. But treating mental health issues is often the first step to getting them to stop self-medicating with alcohol or drugs and get to a place where they can get their lives back on track. The problem is there is an acute nationwide shortage of mental health professionals at all levels, so where all these resources are going to come from, I have no idea.
Agreed
I read several articles over the years discussing the phenomenon that: "If you aren't mentally impaired when you BECAME homeless you WILL be mentally impaired after any long period of being homeless." Being poor is a constant stress situation, being poor and without reliable and reasonable well-kept shelter is, basically, ongoing torture. Very few people can come out of a long period without damage.
I thought Houston was supposed to have some sort of solution for this?
I am sorry to say this, but I strongly disagree with Mr Harbin...not in my back yard, not even walking on my streets or sleeping in my parks. I say this have had some...almost substantial contact and on occasion working with the homeless...I don't want them here, I don't want them near me or where I live.
On the other hand, I support and would help fund any and all the programs suggested by jte21...mental health facilities, actual drug re-hab programs, maybe the storage (!!!!) of bodies in places like the abandoned huge County Health Hospital just off the 10 freeway...there are other shelter spots off the 710 freeway by the LA Rail Yards...etc....but these are generally away from urban residential areas.
These are cost efficient solutions...but, there is one very large caveat, there must be passed, maybe at the state level, a LAW absolving these facilities of any potential liability except for criminal behavior by staffing or intentional negligence with actual malice.
Yes, the homeless will have fewer rights to resort to the civil courts...this is necessary, (I say this as a lawyer).
But above is the appropriate plan to solve this great difficulty for society.
Something which showed up today in a news aggregator site, which isn’t LA but does have a homeless facility connection: https://sanjosespotlight.com/downtown-san-jose-loses-another-major-retailer-pharmacy-cvs/
Yes, thank you for the link...the homeless are a real problem for retailers; I have no answers for this...except for what I gave above...but the closing of these kind of retail outlets is a real negative for the general surrounding population....and of course tends to cause a downward spiral for other leased spaces in the neighborhood...
Homeless need help, of course, but so do poor people, undeserved communities...truth is I am more worried about the genuinely poor than...crazy people, crazy people that are also often violent.
I would like to develop the thesis that there is a too great a tolerance of violence in our society...a cultural acceptance...whereas I don't accept any violent behavior at all.
Back to work, thanks for the conversation.
Reading this brought to mind something I learned about in the San Jose area. A group of Nuns ran housing for disabled people in residential areas. The disabled are very likely. to be homeless. Maybe reclassify the homeless as disabled???
I wonder if the building owner was going to raise the rent. The owner could also see Google coming.
My cousin could truly receive money in their spare time on their laptop. their best friend had been doing this 4 only about 12 months and by now cleared the debt. in their mini mansion and bought a great Car.
That is what we do.. https://earningblue.blogspot.com/
My cousin could truly receive money in their spare time on their laptop. their best friend had been doing this 4 only about 12 months and by now cleared the debt. in their mini mansion and bought a great Car.
That is what we do. https://makerealcash52.blogspot.com
You're adding costs to housing projects by requiring all decisions to flow through one person. Mayor needs a political favor? Done, donation to the animal shelters. Mayor wants you to make a land swap? I'm not saying Bass would do this, but someone will, eventually.
I think the better choice is to weaken local (neighborhood) control over land use and either create a new use-type in the building code that is vastly more permissive or weaken existing minimum code requirements for group housing.
Reading this brought to mind something I learned about in the San Jose area. A group of Nuns ran housing for disabled people in residential areas. The disabled are very likely. to be homeless. Maybe reclassify the homeless as disabled???