The Bay Area Soiled/Homeless/Infested/Trashed Containment Thread (Los Angeles: renting, safety)

[tikkasf]

In regard to the posted video. The homeless issue is nothing new in SF, nor is seeing those obviously mental disturbed and/or those seemly high on drugs. It seems to have gotten worse over the past several years though. For those watching the video, the individual making this video seems to have spent time driving around the areas of SF where these issues are most prevalent. The are other areas/neighborhoods in SF that inundated with this issue....some very nice neighborhoods. There are no tents of homeless camped out in my middle class neighborhood in the western part of SF....that is not to say that a homeless person and/or a mentally disturbed individual might occasionally wander through......same with a number of other neighborhoods in SF..

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by mgforshort

Good afternoon, Sacramento:

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg’s “right to housing” proposal will likely move forward in some capacity following a City Council discussion on Tuesday.

If the City Council eventually approves the ordinance, Sacramento would become the first city in the country to adopt a a legal measure requiring the city provide enough shelter and housing for the homeless. Steinberg’s proposal would start in 2023, and would mean homeless individuals could sue the city if accommodation needs aren’t met."

This is from the Sacramento Bee. If they allow the unhappy homeless sue the city, the lawyers will be delighted, and the money meant for housing will go to to the lawyers. It could become an endless circle devouring more and more taxpayers' cash for the enrichment of a few.

I can envision the writing on the bathroom wall somewhere in (fill in your least favorite state):

"Dudes, if you need money go to Sacramento, here is my attorney's cell number...)

And this is from the Sac Bee too:

Aside form housing, the two options offered to homeless people could include spaces at congregate shelters, Safe Ground sanctioned tent encampments, hotel rooms, tiny homes and trailers. All options would need to provide help for guests to find permanent housing.

It doesn't sound to me like they are going to get condos or townhouses, does it?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Suburban_Guy

[youtube]

My husband worked in the tenderloin from around 1994 to 1999 and it was full of homeless then, this is not some kind of new phenomenon. He managed a digital design and printing firm there and would pay the homeless to pick poop and liquor bottles off the sidewalk every morning. It's a complex problem with no really good answers on how to fix it. The Supreme Court gave the homeless carte blanche access to our cities and parks when they ruled that they can't be moved unless they can be provided a safe place to sleep. I'd love to hear your solutions within the constraints of the Martin V Boise

[tikkasf]

Martin v. Boise (full case name Robert Martin, Lawrence Lee Smith, Robert Anderson, Janet F. Bell, Pamela S. Hawkes, and Basil E. Humphrey v. City of Boise) was a 2018 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in response to a 2009 lawsuit by six homeless plaintiffs against the city of Boise, Idaho regarding the city's anti-camping ordinance.[1] The ruling held that cities cannot enforce anti-camping ordinances if they do not have enough homeless shelter beds available for their homeless population.[2][3] The decision was based on the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the case, leaving the precedent intact in the nine Western states under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington).[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Boise

[T. Damon]

^^^
Cities need portable tent barracks and cots equal to the estimated number of “homeless” people in their region and then offer them to persons illegally camping, trashing and thieving in communities. If not taken up on that offer then arrest and “deport” them from the area. Make it untenable to not take the cot offered, along with tiered additional support services when participants follow the rules, and move them out when they refuse.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by T. Damon

^^^
Cities need portable tent barracks and cots equal to the estimated number of “homeless” people in their region and then offer them to persons illegally camping, trashing and thieving in communities. If not taken up on that offer then arrest and “deport” them from the area. Make it untenable to not take the cot offered, along with tiered additional support services when participants follow the rules, and move them out when they refuse.

Deport them? And where are you going to deport them to? You can't kick them out of the country and I really doubt if cops are going to set up checkpoints to make sure none of the deported people re-enter the city. And right now, we can't keep them from sleeping in public, there aren't enough shelter beds to house them and until that happens your wonderful plan will go absolutely nowhere. Here, maybe this will help you understand the issue: Martin V Boise

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

The Supreme Court gave the homeless carte blanche access to our cities and parks when they ruled that they can't be moved unless they can be provided a safe place to sleep. I'd love to hear your solutions within the constraints of the Martin V Boise

The court rulings are a serious issue that need more attention. At the same time, many of the homeless are drug addicted. If they're caught with drugs, they should have to go to mandatory rehab, like Rhode Island does.

We also need to repeal Prop 47. It essentially allows people to steal from stores with no consequences.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

The court rulings are a serious issue that need more attention. At the same time, many of the homeless are drug addicted. If they're caught with drugs, they should have to go to mandatory rehab, like Rhode Island does.

We also need to repeal Prop 47. It essentially allows people to steal from stores with no consequences.

That's just not true. There are consequences to stealing from stores, prop 47 changed the felony threshold from $400 to $950. And most states have a threshold greater than $950, Texas and Wisconsin don't charge theft as a felony unless the amount stolen is over $2500.

[T. Damon]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Here, maybe this will help you understand the issue: Martin V Boise

What about HAVING ENOUGH COTS AVAILABLE do you not understand? If the shelter is there and they don’t take what’s offered to them there is nothing in that Circuit Courts of Appeals ruling that states that you cannot then arrest them for illegally camping (and toxic dumping and resolutely stealing everything and often assaulting persons around them). Just because the “homeless” (many by choice) druggie thieves don’t consider the accommodations up to their standards doesn’t mean that it is nonexistent and therefore doesn’t count.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by T. Damon

What about HAVING ENOUGH COTS AVAILABLE do you not understand? If the shelter is there and they don’t take what’s offered to them there is nothing in that Circuit Courts of Appeals ruling that states that you cannot then arrest them for illegally camping (and toxic dumping and resolutely stealing everything and often assaulting persons around them). Just because the “homeless” (many by choice) druggie thieves don’t consider the accommodations up to their standards doesn’t mean that it is nonexistent and therefore doesn’t count.

Read the decision, for the most part they are not "illegally camping" because the decision allows them to sleep in public places, like sidewalks. I don't like it any more than you do, but I try to deal with reality rather than dream up fantastical solutions that will never see the light of day.