Red Mosquito

It is a chain (Travelodge) but an independently owned franchise (like a McDonalds).

Heading into election primaries, homelessness looks like theeee number one issue on peoples’ minds here.

Which candidate would you support?

Allow the homeless encampments to remain as they are and treat people where they are with things like clean needle exchanges (in parks and in schools, blocking sidewalks, murders and fires within the encampments happening not rarely)

Sweep the encampments (after giving sufficient notice and offering viable housing & treatment alternatives, anyone who declines gets kicked out of the encampment, park, etc. and realistically they just start a new encampment somewhere probably not that far away)

Which one do you support?

I’ll ask the questions around here

Bammer wrote:Heading into election primaries, homelessness looks like theeee number one issue on peoples’ minds here.

Which candidate would you support?

Allow the homeless encampments to remain as they are and treat people where they are with things like clean needle exchanges (in parks and in schools, blocking sidewalks, murders and fires within the encampments happening not rarely)

Sweep the encampments (after giving sufficient notice and offering viable housing & treatment alternatives, anyone who declines gets kicked out of the encampment, park, etc. and realistically they just start a new encampment somewhere probably not that far away)

I live in a city that tried the first option. It has failed spectacularly multiple times. Where some see letting people with drug addictions and mental health issues live in tents as humane. I see letting people languish in their disease as inhumane.
I don't want to force anyone into drug treatment or mental health treatment, I also don't want the crime and other issues with letting people live wild with little to no rules.
I have no idea what the solution is but I can tell you that the first solution doesn't help anyone. The latter solution at least helps people who live in the area.
In a free society I really don't know how to address people who don't want to address their health issues even if they impact the public at large. Same issue just different class of people as those who don't want to get vaccinated. It is amazing how the two groups get treated differently across the board of political belief.

tragabigzanda wrote:Option 3: Tax Bezos and the like to build a killer facility and invest in social & mental health services

Hmmm.... perhaps some kind of large agricultural project?

tragabigzanda wrote:Option 3: Tax Bezos and the like to build a killer facility and invest in social & mental health services

Are you going to force people into these facilities? Or do they just decide to go there on their own? If you let people decide for themselves, how are you going to lessen their negative impact on a community while they don't address their medical issues?

A big one popped up down the street a few weeks ago. It's growing.

Maybe I'll join them. Not paying rent for awhile sounds nice.

We tried to sweep our encampment a few years ago, but unfortunately the 9th Circuit ruled that it was cruel and unusual punishment, and SCOTUS denied cert. I don't think the 8th Amendment should give people the right to sleep in public, but for now, if you're in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction (as Bammer is), that's a tough reality you'll have to deal with.

tragabigzanda wrote:Option 3: Tax Bezos and the like to build a killer facility and invest in social & mental health services

In fairness to Bammer, Option 2 did include "offering viable housing & treatment alternatives".

The homeless due to unaddressed mental health or addiction issues cause many of the same societal problems as anti-vaxxers. Their life and medical choices have serious and often negative impacts on their communities. These are groups that want nothing to do with living in ways that meet generally accepted community standards. I've yet to see a way to address this issue where individual freedom is a priority.

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Option 3: Tax Bezos and the like to build a killer facility and invest in social & mental health services

In fairness to Bammer, Option 2 did include "offering viable housing & treatment alternatives".

With plenty of notice before the sweep

tragabigzanda wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Option 3: Tax Bezos and the like to build a killer facility and invest in social & mental health services

Are you going to force people into these facilities? Or do they just decide to go there on their own? If you let people decide for themselves, how are you going to lessen their negative impact on a community while they don't address their medical issues?

Of course it'd be compulsory, and those who preferred to stay on the street or in more conventional homeless shelters could do so with increased resources should they want them.

What are these negative impacts you're suggesting? That having some sort of comprehensive transitional housing facility, where homeless could have good food, safety, some level of privacy, perhaps some agricultural or other work, access to education etc would somehow be a bad thing? For what? Like property values and the like?

Are you saying that treating addiction or mental health issues would by compulsory for housing to be provided?

Vancouver has tried just about everything under the sun. We have made some advances supporting people who want to be helped. We can generally get them housing and then some support.

A continuing barrier to success is where to provide housing. This is due to NIMBY'ism and the homeless are a picky about where they want their free living space to be. Quite seriously, during the beginnings of Covid where the city wanted absolutely everyone homed, shelters were ruled out if they were not within easy walking distance of their current homeless camps. They didn't feel they would end up living in those spaces as they were too far from their community and for many too far from their source of drugs. There are also the contingent who will not live anywhere they cannot use drugs or drink in, or that are not pet friendly.

It cannot square the circle on how to address people who don't want to address their addiction or mental health issues. They currently can't stay in shelters or a lot of housing because they are not yet ready to address their issues. The negative side to those issues are the impacts of homelessness on surroundings and community, the crime that's required to support an addiction.

We spend so much time referring to this group as marginalized that I think we start to infantize the group.

tragabigzanda wrote:Santa Monica not fairing too well. Fifth time here, and they used to be relegated to the pier and Venice Beach boardwalk. Now they’re sleeping on the sidewalks of Wilshire and Montana, doing all manner of crude stuff in broad daylight.

yeah, its been getting worse over there for a long time now with no remedy in sight..we've noticed a small uptick in some setting up here in hermosa

doug rr wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Santa Monica not fairing too well. Fifth time here, and they used to be relegated to the pier and Venice Beach boardwalk. Now they’re sleeping on the sidewalks of Wilshire and Montana, doing all manner of crude stuff in broad daylight.

yeah, its been getting worse over there for a long time now with no remedy in sight..we've noticed a small uptick in some setting up here in hermosa

Culver City, baby