Human Rights Watch issued a voluminous report Wednesday castigating local officials and Gov. Gavin Newsom for criminalizing homelessness and failing to observe âan internationally protected human rightâ to âadequate housing.â
The organization, which reports on human rights abuses in some of the most violent places on earth, said the U.S. as a whole, and particularly the City of Los Angeles, have treated âhousing primarily as a commodityâ while âtheir primary response on the ground has been criminalization of those without it.â
The 310-page report, â âYou Have to Move!â The Cruel and Ineffective Criminalization of Unhoused People in Los Angeles,â consists of dozens of case studies, charts and graphics of arrest and camp cleanup data and extended passages of social commentary. It recounts the history of litigation over homelessness and major enforcement actions from Echo Park to Venice. (...)
I said ONE of the problems. Not the only problem. Just happens to be the biggest one. Do you want to allow drug use in these shelters ? Yes ? Well the biggest problem is solved. The drug users have many reasons for using drugs besides physical addiction.
Gotta separate out the issues instead of trying to solve it all at once. A small sliver of poverty could be prevented, if America wanted to. First, poor people that find themselves out on the street for financial reasons are there because the government's "promise" to educate its people has failed, leaving them thinking that they have no future except as OnlyFans "content creators" or in pro sports. That goes back to the educational system, and - notably - its lack of a reasonable apprenticeship/labor pathway for those that don't want to memorize Planck's constant. So, start people with a good, free educational background in many pathways, in areas that will help them and employers, and they'll grow up to be good workers, with some future instead of none, making some money, and then not end up on the street. Again, these are the ones that want to participate in society but find themselves marginalized due to lack of opportunities. Weirdly - many countries successfully do this, instead of buying more military equipment. Invest in your population with a good, accessible high quality educational system and reap the benefits in a better populace. That's a better long-term vision than "how many poor houses can we build?"
I am a big fan of Mike Rowe. If you know who he is and what he does, that will save a lot of back and forth on the points that we agree on, which in this case are more than a few.
We need a triage system. Those in temporary need simply down on their luck or the victim of shitty circumstances beyond their control get first crack the resources that you mentioned. The ones who still want to do things right and have an actual work ethic. At the other end of the curve (remember how we used to talk about that damn Bell Curve ?) are the IV addicted. Usually the most broken of them all with little prospect of ever kicking anything. Beyond rehabilitation. And there really are people like that. They have to go somewhere. Either you make them wards of the state and incarcerate them into protective custody and just maintain their habits until they die or leave them on the streets. There really is no in between. This is the end game of Reagan emptying the mental hospitals and putting them out on the streets. Now certain people are emptying the prisons, causing a no consequences for bad behaviour paradigm. That just enables more bad behaviour by the people who are on the fence to still trying to do things right or saying fuck it all, why shouldn't I be that way too ? Might as well cuz everyone else is and there aren't any consequences anymore if you get caught.
So is it time for the Matrix for the broken beyond repair ? Is society ready to actually deal with this ? What is the practical alternative, if any ?
Or is this all just an election year stunt by Newsome to cover his ass in the same manner that politicians are always tough on crime before an election and then the day after, it's what did I say ? Remind again in a couple of days ... rinse repeat ... news cycle rolls over and everyone has forgotten within a week. And back to the actual status quo.
The more I think about it, I'll go with a stunt. Just another virtue signaling exercise. So forget everything I said above. It really doesn't matter. No one is serious.
Gotta separate out the issues instead of trying to solve it all at once. A small sliver of poverty could be prevented, if America wanted to.
First, poor people that find themselves out on the street for financial reasons are there because the government's "promise" to educate its people has failed, leaving them thinking that they have no future except as OnlyFans "content creators" or in pro sports.
That goes back to the educational system, and - notably - its lack of a reasonable apprenticeship/labor pathway for those that don't want to memorize Planck's constant.
So, start people with a good, free educational background in many pathways, in areas that will help them and employers, and they'll grow up to be good workers, with some future instead of none, making some money, and then not end up on the street. Again, these are the ones that want to participate in society but find themselves marginalized due to lack of opportunities.
Weirdly - many countries successfully do this, instead of buying more military equipment.
Invest in your population with a good, accessible high quality educational system and reap the benefits in a better populace. That's a better long-term vision than "how many poor houses can we build?"
Shameless plug: there's a video in the neo-liberalism thread that's very germane to this discussion.
I said ONE of the problems. Not the only problem. Just happens to be the biggest one.
Do you want to allow drug use in these shelters ? Yes ? Well the biggest problem is solved. The drug users have many reasons for using drugs besides physical addiction.
Gotta separate out the issues instead of trying to solve it all at once. A small sliver of poverty could be prevented, if America wanted to.
First, poor people that find themselves out on the street for financial reasons are there because the government's "promise" to educate its people has failed, leaving them thinking that they have no future except as OnlyFans "content creators" or in pro sports.
That goes back to the educational system, and - notably - its lack of a reasonable apprenticeship/labor pathway for those that don't want to memorize Planck's constant.
So, start people with a good, free educational background in many pathways, in areas that will help them and employers, and they'll grow up to be good workers, with some future instead of none, making some money, and then not end up on the street. Again, these are the ones that want to participate in society but find themselves marginalized due to lack of opportunities.
Weirdly - many countries successfully do this, instead of buying more military equipment.
Invest in your population with a good, accessible high quality educational system and reap the benefits in a better populace. That's a better long-term vision than "how many poor houses can we build?"
One of the problems that keeps the "campers" out of the long term housing is the requirement to be drug free.
You can't get anywhere if you think these people are all the same. We have three issues to address:
I said ONE of the problems. Not the only problem. Just happens to be the biggest one.
Do you want to allow drug use in these shelters ? Yes ? Well the biggest problem is solved. The drug users have many reasons for using drugs besides physical addiction.
One of the problems that keeps the "campers" out of the long term housing is the requirement to be drug free. Rather than quit and get 3 hots and a cot, they would rather do their drugs and live free range style.
You can't get anywhere if you think these people are all the same. We have three issues to address:
1) rampant drug use/addiction, and good luck - Nancy - in telling them to Just Say No
2) mental illness and the inability to function, especially in a situation with a very broken health care delivery system
3) poverty, brought on by issues 1 or 2 or even just capitalism or dependency or lack of education or racism or local economics
If we can't address any of those three things successfully - and we show no signs of being able to, in ANY of our administrations - then we're just handwringing NIMBYers waiting for Tracy Chapman's "poor people gonna rise up and take what's theirs" to come to fruition.
One of the problems that keeps the "campers" out of the long term housing is the requirement to be drug free. Rather than quit and get 3 hots and a cot, they would rather do their drugs and live free range style.
This is the heart of the problem.
There are places to go, but they won't go because these places have rules.
Well we now have rules for the streets.
What is gonna give first ? I have not a clue. California just wastes money.
The state spent $6 billion for 60 miles of high speed rail to nowhere. That is $100 million per mile for the track.
Could'a built 6,000 million dollar McMansions instead to help ease the housing shortage out there.
Or 12,000 - $500k apartments.
I'll have to check out the video yet.
Is the Cypress Freeway you all have been referring to the Nimitz Freeway, the double decker that collapsed during the quake ? That is the name I know it as from when it was originally built. Remember when it was brand new. A space saving super duper freeway when it was built.
We canât have anarchy. There are laws, and there has to be a societal contract where we all get along as a group.
It canât be that we all have to see our lives become unsafe due to uncontrolled mental health issues, poverty, and/or drug use. Places that have thought âanything goesâ have typically degenerated into something undesirable, not utopian. So - we have to do away with âanything goes.â
We canât have anarchy. There are laws, and there has to be a societal contract where we all get along as a group.
It canât be that we all have to see our lives become unsafe due to uncontrolled mental health issues, poverty, and/or drug use. Places that have thought âanything goesâ have typically degenerated into something undesirable, not utopian. So - we have to do away with âanything goes.â
I know all these places. This is not an exaggeration in the least.
Agreed. What's needed is doing away with the systemic problems causing all the homelessness. Many of them are mentally ill and/or have substance abuse problems. Thanks to the embrace of "rugged individualism" and the demise of empathy in this country the support systems for these folks has been steadily stripped away to the point that it's basically non-existent now.
We canât have anarchy. There are laws, and there has to be a societal contract where we all get along as a group.
It canât be that we all have to see our lives become unsafe due to uncontrolled mental health issues, poverty, and/or drug use. Places that have thought âanything goesâ have typically degenerated into something undesirable, not utopian. So - we have to do away with âanything goes.â
I know all these places. This is not an exaggeration in the least.
Lots of fingers to point. I used to live not far from where he's driving around (at least at the start of that video), and it's in that area that was redlined by the Cypress Freeway, separated from everything else and only a few roads in or out. The homelessness wasn't nearly as terrible as it is now, but it has been a wasteland for 75 years. When the earthquake happened, the Cypress Freeway was abandoned and the one thing on the other side that was a benefit to the communityâthe train stationâwas also lost to earthquake damage. Or so they said. Anyway, all the stuff you talked about plus improved access after removing the freeway that counterintuitively allowed more people to discover the area just brought more and more people down there.
It's definitely a mess. And short term fixes to specific problems lead to long-term exacerbation of the larger problem. Last I heard, the idea of giving free RV Dump sites so these Winnebagos weren't dumping their shit onto the city streets is controversial because it will just make more people think it's all legal and a good way to live.
We canât have anarchy. There are laws, and there has to be a societal contract where we all get along as a group.
It canât be that we all have to see our lives become unsafe due to uncontrolled mental health issues, poverty, and/or drug use. Places that have thought âanything goesâ have typically degenerated into something undesirable, not utopian. So - we have to do away with âanything goes.â
I know all these places. This is not an exaggeration in the least.
âThis executive order directs state agencies to move urgently to address dangerous encampments while supporting and assisting the individuals living in them â and provides guidance for cities and counties to do the same,â Newson said in a statement. âThere are simply no more excuses. Itâs time for everyone to do their part.â
The order calls on state officials âto adopt humane and dignified policies to urgently address encampments on state property.â
A little ambiguity to what the latter comment means, but seems like doing something about "encampments" was inevitable for the safety of city residents.
I was being sarcastic.
I've lived here all my life and am willing to put up with the good and bad.
Frankly, I haven't seen anyplace that's that much better to make a change.
If you ignore the people who live along the coast.. those really rich liberal ones who complain about all the really rich people
this is really a nice place to live.
Location: Really deep in the heart of South California Gender:
Posted:
Dec 4, 2023 - 2:01pm
islander wrote:
Really? and do you think you would be better off? We haven't even touched on many other topics like what happens to companies (and their employees) in the new divided states - do they get to still exist, will they still exist. And if the overall economy somehow survives, who keeps the dollar? And do they really want it - 'backed by the full faith and force of the US government' has a pretty good heft, 'usually accepted in a loose amalgamation of waring fiefdoms' doesn't have the same ring to it. What about reciprocity? You can use your CA drivers license in Utah now, but what if it's good in Tennessee, but not Oklahoma and you want to make a cross country trip? And who is going to arbitrate this split? As noted, we can't agree on the time standard +/- 1 hour, so do you really think we are going to agree on who gets to split up trillions of dollars in assets?
It's a nice 12 second fantasy for dealing with 'those guys'. But the reality is that any kind of split is most likely going to be a war. And history doesn't have many wars where the outcome is great and no one gets hurt. Too bad we don't seem to be able to learn from history.
I was being sarcastic.
I've lived here all my life and am willing to put up with the good and bad.
Frankly, I haven't seen anyplace that's that much better to make a change.
If you ignore the people who live along the coast.. those really rich liberal ones who complain about all the really rich people
this is really a nice place to live.
Really? and do you think you would be better off? We haven't even touched on many other topics like what happens to companies (and their employees) in the new divided states - do they get to still exist, will they still exist. And if the overall economy somehow survives, who keeps the dollar? And do they really want it - 'backed by the full faith and force of the US government' has a pretty good heft, 'usually accepted in a loose amalgamation of waring fiefdoms' doesn't have the same ring to it. What about reciprocity? You can use your CA drivers license in Utah now, but what if it's good in Tennessee, but not Oklahoma and you want to make a cross country trip? And who is going to arbitrate this split? As noted, we can't agree on the time standard +/- 1 hour, so do you really think we are going to agree on who gets to split up trillions of dollars in assets?
It's a nice 12 second fantasy for dealing with 'those guys'. But the reality is that any kind of split is most likely going to be a war. And history doesn't have many wars where the outcome is great and no one gets hurt. Too bad we don't seem to be able to learn from history.
Well, you donât want perfect to be the enemy of good.
Just like in Europe, itâs completely possible to have small nations adjacent and they reach agreements to make sure that commerce and travel all continue. And the American dollar could still function like the Euro. No sense in breaking it into smaller currencies - although it would be an interesting experiment to have one small nation (Nevada!) function with nothing but Bitcoin, right?
I understand your venting here, and not advocating.
Thankfully (?) this isn't being discussed...but maybe if we did consider this end and actually had some "thought" to what we are all fighting over, common ground might become visible once again!?
You are right. I think maybe it should be discussed a bit more just so people do realize what the 'good' parts of the union are. Clean water, freedom to travel and work, ability to go to your church on sunday... all these things get taken for granted. But everyone is quick to go to 'civil war' when they don't get their way. The outcome of that isn't we win or you win, but EVERYTHING gets broken and whoever survives gets to try and rebuild something from the smoldering pile of what's left.
But how do we get back to common ground? There is severe disagreement on who 'won' this debate - both sides think they won handily (and apparently both sides think the other side cheated). Trump and Biden are the candidates*, and the tribes are basically Trump and not Trump. Not much wiggle room in between. The strategy of both sides is to play to the minutia of the rules and win the tiny sliver of available electoral votes (or maybe change the way they are apportioned if you don't win them). No one is really looking to win the majority of votes or appeal to the most people.
Really? and do you think you would be better off? We haven't even touched on many other topics like what happens to companies (and their employees) in the new divided states - do they get to still exist, will they still exist. And if the overall economy somehow survives, who keeps the dollar? And do they really want it - 'backed by the full faith and force of the US government' has a pretty good heft, 'usually accepted in a loose amalgamation of waring fiefdoms' doesn't have the same ring to it. What about reciprocity? You can use your CA drivers license in Utah now, but what if it's good in Tennessee, but not Oklahoma and you want to make a cross country trip? And who is going to arbitrate this split? As noted, we can't agree on the time standard +/- 1 hour, so do you really think we are going to agree on who gets to split up trillions of dollars in assets?
It's a nice 12 second fantasy for dealing with 'those guys'. But the reality is that any kind of split is most likely going to be a war. And history doesn't have many wars where the outcome is great and no one gets hurt. Too bad we don't seem to be able to learn from history.
I understand your venting here, and not advocating.
Thankfully (?) this isn't being discussed...but maybe if we did consider this end and actually had some "thought" to what we are all fighting over, common ground might become visible once again!?
