Homelessness

Los Angeles Is Spending Over $1 Billion To House the Homeless. It's Failing.

Los Angeles County saw disease outbreaks and 1,000 homeless deaths last year.

|

HD Download

More than 2,500 homeless individuals sleep on the streets of the 53-square-block Skid Row area in downtown Los Angeles.

"Skid row is the worst manmade disaster in the United States. There's human waste on the sidewalks. There's all kinds of disease," says Rev. Andy Bales, CEO of Skid Row's Union Rescue Mission, the nation's largest private homeless shelter. He lost his leg to staph infection he contracted while serving the homeless on Skid Row.

But California's homelessness crisis extends far beyond Skid Row and Los Angeles. The state's homeless population has jumped more than 12 percent in the last five years, and it's part of a national crisis.

The city's particular predicament is notable for its sheer scale. Bales says that Los Angeles, which has the largest unsheltered homeless population in America, has failed to deal with what's become a public health and humanitarian crisis. More than 1,000 homeless people died on the streets of Los Angeles County last year, according to government figures.

In 2016, Los Angeles voters approved a referendum to spend more than $1.2 billion dollars building new housing for the homeless. It's part of a plan championed by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who declined our interview request.

The city set a target in 2016 of building 10,000 new housing units within a decade, but just one percent of those apartments will be ready for occupancy by the end of 2019.

"It's going to be too late when they get through spending the money," says Jimmy Anderson, who's lived on Skid Row for 40 years and currently sleeps at Union Rescue Mission. "There's going to be triple the homeless who're out here now."

Building in California isn't easy.

The state legislative analyst's office found that "increasing competition for limited housing is the primary driver of housing cost growth in coastal California," which has some of the nation's highest housing prices and rents thanks partly to local interest groups, which often use tools like zoning and the state's environmental review law to delay or kill new housing projects. Those obstacles prevent new housing units from being built, which drives up prices. As a result, people living on the margins are priced out and turn to the streets.

Even after voters approved more than $1.2 billion dollars specifically to build housing for the increasing homeless population, a recent report by the L.A.'s Controller's Office attributed the delays and cost overruns largely to regulatory barriers, permitting challenges, and bureaucratic confusion.

Meanwhile, the existing shelters are running out of space.

"Women and kids are going to take over the [Union Rescue Mission] and all the men are going to have to move back out here onto the street," Anderson says.

The city's approach to homelessness, known as "Housing First," was adopted by municipalities nationwide after Utah reportedly reduced chronic homelessness by 91 percent by giving away permanent apartments with no strings attached.

But state auditors later attributed those findings to a data collection error. Utahns don't actually know how their homeless population has changed over the years, or what effect various homelessness programs have had on Utah's homeless population, which is estimated to be two-thirds the size of just Skid Row's homeless population. What's more, building housing for the homeless is considerably more costly and complex in Los Angeles than in Salt Lake City.

The city initially ballparked the permanent units at a median cost of $350,000 a piece. Three years later, the estimated cost rose to more than half a million per unit. Some units are approaching $700,000 each.

Andy Bales says he saw it coming.

"I was a critic 10 years ago of this plan even before it came about," he says. "A very expensive way of spending all the resources on a few and leaving the many out in the cold."

In Los Angeles, three out of four homeless people live unsheltered on the street. Bales had wanted the city to allocate a portion of the money to nonprofits and churches like his to provide temporary relief but says critics dismissed and even laughed at him.

"There's this group that is so dogmatic about permanent supportive housing as the solution," he says. "And they think the only solution is the perfect rather than good."

Bales says that, given the current emergency, the city should reconsider its heavy focus on finding a long term solution.

Union Rescue Mission just opened what's called a Sprung structure, a relatively inexpensive but sturdy and weather-resistant tent with 120 beds. He encourages the city to invest more in Sprung structures and other cheap, easily constructed solutions like mobile homes, container homes, or even 3-D printed concrete houses.

"We cannot spend $600,000 per person per unit and ever get it done," says Bales. "We've got to think innovatively or we're going to have a bigger disaster on our hands."

In terms of where to put these structures, the L.A. Controller's Office reports that the city owns more than 7,500 lots, though neighborhood councils regularly fight to keep shelters out.

Property owners in Skid Row and elsewhere in the city would like to see the police clear homeless encampments out of their neighborhoods, which could also help to avert the emerging public health crisis.

But past court settlements prevent that, and a September ruling on a case out of Idaho from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that doing so constitutes cruel and unusual punishment when cities don't have "adequate shelter" to accommodate everyone living on the streets. Los Angeles and Los Angeles County have signed onto a lawsuit challenging that ruling.

"We just firmly believe that the police are not an answer to homelessness," says Becky Dennison of the Venice Community Housing Corporation, which opposes the criminalization of sidewalk camping in Los Angeles.

Dennison says that the focus should remain on building more housing, not arresting people for being unable to find shelter. But proponents of the lawsuit say the city needs guidance from the courts on what constitutes "adequate shelter" before investing in solutions that might free them to enforce anti-camping laws.

"We don't actually ever need to criminalize low income people for non-criminal behaviors," Dennison says.

Given the lack of progress on permanent or temporary housing, Bales is also hesitant to sign onto the lawsuit for the time being.

"I'm not signing on to remove people from the streets until we have enough places to go," Bales says. "When we get that, then we can worry about asking somebody to leave the streets."

Under the increasing pressure in recent months, the city has erected a few of its own Sprung structures to address the crisis. Bales says it's still not nearly enough.

"It's ridiculous. I mean, who would want to leave 44,000 people on the streets to die while you stick with your very expensive plan to help a few?"

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Benjamin Gaskell and John Osterhoudt. Music by Kai Engel.

NEXT: Bryan Caplan Says Milton Friedman Is Wrong About Open Borders

HD Download

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. //More than 1,000 homeless people died on the streets of Los Angeles County last year, according to government figures.//

    What you are missing is that this is actually the solution to the homelessness problem. They need to focus on getting those numbers up. Mass graves should work as well. Most socialist republics are quite adept at employing mass graves.

    1. How many of those deaths were due to drug overdoses? Exposure? Acute malnutrition? Violent crime. My guess is that the number is actually very low when drug overdoses and violent crime are factored out.

      As this is a de coral created crisi, I find it absurd that the same rationales will somehow solve the problem.

    2. “it will reduce the surplus population” – E. Scrooge.

    3. Mass graves should work as well.

      A mass grave for 1000 homeless ballooned to $2.1 billion and 7 years. This, after the creation of special Fast Track legislation.

  2. “We cannot spend $600,000 per person per unit and ever get it done,” says Bales.

    Exactly. It’s got to be at least double that.

    1. “Women and kids are going to take over the [Union Rescue Mission] and all the men are going to have to move back out here onto the street,

      If any of their funding is from government sources, I’d sure like to see a lawsuit over this. How is it that men are the only ones who can be kicked out on the street? Overt sexism anyone?

  3. That’s weird, I was told that a huge influx of millions of illegal Mexicans would increase economic output and make everyone rich. Southern California shouldn’t have any homeless if Reasonomics holds.

    But of course it doesn’t. That being the case, they could have spent about 1/10 that much on one-way bus fares for the entire homeless population to Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and St. Louis.

    1. How come all of those illegal immigrants find homes?

      1. Because they’re NOT mentally ill and suffering from drug addiction?

        1. And they do that “work” thing.

      2. They are willing to put 3 families in a two-bedroom apartment which they can afford because there are at least 3-5 people working.

        However, if you got rid of illegal aliens there would be a huge surplus of housing and prices would drop.

        1. For those who do want to get rid of illegals, that is actually the most effective approach too. I’m not one of those and I find the xenophobia/racism offensive. But going after them where they live is far easier than going after them where they work. And slumlords are far bigger beneficiaries of illegals-remaining-illegal than are employers (in part cuz they are usually both). Course they are also far more powerful in govt and as political donors – which is why they have managed effectively to divert attention solely to workforce raids.

    2. Portland and Seattle already did that. They sent them to Spokane. Which has been really awesome for us here. When I was asked what to do to solve the problem, I said the cheapest solution is to bus them right back out.

    3. 8 out of every ten migrants over the southern border are Honduran refugees. They are fleeing paramilitaries and cartels armed by the US Taxpayer all to prop up the Narco-regime which consents to Palmerola Air Base.

      Unfortunately, Reason is a propaganda rag that kowtows to the State Department (at a sacrifice of Libertarian principles when it comes to things like lying about Venuzuelan economics in order to advance a military war of aggression), and Reason ignores how US destabilization efforts under the proxy “war on drugs” create the problem.

  4. What I don’t understand – what I’ve never understood – is why anyone stays there. Okay, if you’re homeless but have a job or family, you might want to put up with their outrageous housing costs and the consequent property. But that should only apply to a small fraction of their homeless population.

    In the midwest, $600,000 will not only buy a very nice four-bedroom house outright, it would also leave about three-quarters of that money to start up your own business or completely change your career. If you live frugally enough, it might even be enough to retire on. It seems insane to be spending that kind of money on a single dwelling.

    1. You mention insanity, which is half the problem. The other half is drug addiction. And when you make it illegal to force people into mental institutions, and you promote their drug abuse, this is what happens.

      Reason promotes both of the things that caused this problem. Just one step closer to Libertopia

      1. I suppose the truly libertarian thing to do would be to cede parts of the city to the homeless while perpetually retreating in the hopes that the homeless population is eradicated through disease, exposure, drugs, and starvation.

        Abandoning the homeless to die in their self contained shanty towns is the principled, libertarian position. Strangely, that also seems to be the de facto progressive-leftist solution.

        Makes you think.

        1. You mean Ike ‘Escape From New York’, but the population is homeless instead of inmates?

      2. Horseshit. The problem is high housing costs. Median rent (that means the charge for someone moving now not the rent for someone who’s been in a place for decades) in LA for a studio is $1700/mo. For a one-bedroom, $2100.

        So – someone would need to earn $10/hour in order to turn around and pay 100% of that on rent. $20/hour in order to pay 50% on rent. $30/hour in order to pay 33% (the rule-of-thumb threshhold for rent that is high enough to generally prevent any future economic advance) on rent. Simple economics not ‘mental illness’.

        Yes I’m sure the homeless have mental/drug problems or are otherwise pretty marginal. It means they do not have a prayer of sustainably earning $30/hour. They are marginal workforce (best case) and marginal workforce needs marginal housing or they become homeless.

        CA prop owners decided long ago that they do not want marginal housing. They want increases in prop value with no increase in prop taxes and control of govt to ensure both outcomes. Therefore – Property owners in Skid Row and elsewhere in the city would like to see the police clear homeless encampments out of their neighborhoods – criminalize homelessness and make it someone else’s problem. That way the problem just disappears and prop values go up and taxes don’t. Right.

        Assuming CA prop owners won’t change, the only actual solution is for
        a)the CA population to decline by roughly 50% – from 39mm to 21mm or so (the peeps in 1976) or
        b)CA population to tier into a feudal society of small % wealthy landowners and a vast majority of happy Third World serfs or
        c)CA population to tier into a feudal society of small % wealthy landowners and a majority of angry serfs with pitchforks.

        Problem of course is – the rest of the US doesn’t want any Californians AT ALL (not the prop owners or the renters and certainly not the homeless) and CA prop owners don’t want their prop prices to fall by a ton. Which renders all those options ‘unthinkable’.

        So we are stuck reading stupid articles from CA in Reason about what a clusterfuck it is. Forever. Like Groundhog Day with no ending.

        1. Poor victims. Everything is so terrible and unfair.

        2. There are about 800,000 illegal aliens in LA county, if you believe the federal government. Almost none of them live on the streets, in spite of speaking a foreign language, having had sub-standard education, and being on the run from la Migra.
          It is not the cost of housing, insanely high as it is, but something else.
          Drugs. Always the best solution.

          1. I will bet you dollars to donuts that landlords who rent out to illegals do not enforce anything like ‘how many people are living in each room’. And while they may be foreigners to citizens, they are not necessarily foreigners to each other. They’ll come from the same village or somesuch. Like immigrants always have, they will initially cluster together in very easily identifiable neighborhoods. Inside their lodgings, it may well look like the lower East Side did in the 19th century with maybe better plumbing.

            The homeless are much more individuals in a family-structured housing environment. They don’t actually have some ‘connection’ to other homeless. They are simply in the same circumstance.

            So it is actually a very different housing dynamic.

            1. The mentally ill and addict homeless have also trashed all their relationships. They ain’t easy to get along with. Thats a big part of why they have no one to stay with.

              Years ago, When my brother was between places to live, he stayed with me. Did his share, paid his way and wasn’t dangerous. I had no problem with it. I have another brother where I might have kicked him out . He was an asshole back then.

        3. Most homeless people don’t have jobs, meaning that even if rent was $50 a month they couldn’t afford it.

        4. Why should anyone try and house unemployed, low-skilled people in one of the most expensive places to live in the nation? There are many locations in this country where an adult can support themselves on a minimum wage salary. You can’t live in LA on five times the minimum wage.

        5. And why are housing costs high, JFree?

          To those of us outside CA, it looks like simple supply and demand. Fix either one and prices will come down. Reason consistently argues to reduce the regulations and other constraints on housing supply. But if rational people simply leave, demand will come down – and so will prices.

          Yeah, maybe the incumbent property owners are evil and are actively lobbying against supply-side reforms. So what. Move away and laugh as (a decade or two later) their inflated home values crash.

          By the way, I don’t mind if Californians move into my neighborhood – as long as they remember why they left.

        6. The problem is not high housing costs at all.
          Others have pointed out the fact that almost none of the homeless are able bodied illegal immigrants.
          The illegals are able to find work and housing.
          The women and children forced into homelessness will take advantage of welfare and charity and will soon be housed and in school and employed.
          The permanent homeless are mentally ill drug addicts.

          1. It’s always been my understanding, based on widespread reading, that the homeless are divided evenly: a third drug addicts, a third mentally ill, and a third just folks that like the homeless lifestyle. Can someone pleased correct me if that has changed over the years?

        7. But of course, the political “leadership” in Kalifornia is making it all better – by inviting an unending stream of criminal invaders to take up residence – and further, by giving legal camouflage to violent felons who happen to be here illegally.

        8. JFree: I’m not challenging your stats, and I completely agree with you on the basic cause of California’s homelessness mess. But frankly tons of young people with fairly low-paying, entry-level jobs are able to rent in places like LA. How?

          1. They get roommates and share the costs.
          2. They rent below-median-cost apartments (because half of all apartments are in that category!)
          3. They elect to be house-poor.

          Of course the ultimate (partial) solution is to unleash the housing market. California (and other places, largely but not entirely on the West Coast) has made it so difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to build new housing, via restrictive local development and land-use policies, that it has fallen far behind the need. And, as you point out, that’s unlikely to change.

          Between 2000 and 2015 California under-produced housing stock by about 3.4 million (!) units. Yikes! Of /course/ those worse off — for whatever reasons, not all of which have to do with drug abuse, mental illness, or criminality — can’t compete for housing. It’s a large part of the reason that so many Californians are leaving the state — 190,000 (!) more leaving California than moving to it from other states in 2018, and the numbers rising this year. And it’s — of course — a large part of the reason that homelessness is such an issue there.

          1. Roommates are usually a form of peer-group family. They can ‘fit’ into a single-family type house cuz they figure out how to live together and have something in common. I’m pretty sure there aren’t many ‘roommate wanted’ ads on craiglist for ‘someone who is our parent’s age and pref a bit marginal and not all there’.

            At this point unleashing new construction won’t even help. Renters get hand-me-down housing. Poor renters – hand-me-down housing that Goodwill has rejected. It’s always been that way and always will be and nothing wrong with that. Unless we spent the last 70 years since WW2 tearing down all the housing that used to be the main lodging for poor renters. And all the housing that used to be the choice of either 1 person households (20% of households in 1973 – 28% now) or non-related adults living in ‘proximity’ (15% of households in 1973 – 20% now). Our housing stock has gone from 3.8 million 2 room or less units in 73 to 1.8 million unit. With same trend for every other possible measure of ‘small’ or ‘single-oriented’

            There could be a possible partial solution re eliminating single-family zoning so that duplexes or rent-out-the-garage stuff can happen. But at this point, even the McMansion single-family can’t really be retrofitted back into a boarding house. So even if regs on that stuff were loosened (which propowners will oppose), the construction/land costs are too high for it to solve the demand problem. And no one obviously wants the big institutional setting – converted hospital/motel or maybe mall – in their neighborhood.

            We just spent the last 70 years with govt subsidizing a housing system entirely geared around a nuclear family. And that is now close to 100% of our housing stock. Getting rid of those subsidies entirely would probably help. But until that actually happens any ‘loosening of regs’ is generally going to make that distortion worse. Housing is no longer built to satisfy housing demand. It is built to satisfy investment/tax demand.

            1. “At this point unleashing new construction won’t even help.”
              […]
              “We just spent the last 70 years with govt subsidizing a housing system entirely geared around a nuclear family. And that is now close to 100% of our housing stock.”

              Bullshit twice.

        9. This was caused by Prop 13. Howard Jarvis said it would lower total taxes, and it didn’t. What it did was trigger an orgy of land speculation, making everything, including government, more expensive. Within 18 months of Prop 13’s passage, foreign ownership of California land doubled.

          California has returned to late-stage feudalism, where fewer and fewer landlords live off the productivity of tenants, and the tenants pay all the taxes. Californians will not face up to this problem until their state is nearly dead.

      3. My step daughter is schizophrenic. She has had bouts of street-living. According to her, if you count alcoholism as drug addiction, 85% of those living rough are addicts. About 10% are mentally ill, although some of them self medicate, muddying the distinction. The remaining 5% are just down on their luck, but that population will soon move on.
        Legalize drugs, so that those on the drugs can either cope or die.

      4. Note to foreign readers: there are mystical bigots eager to turn America into what you fled. They are nameless sockpuppet defacers of anything resembling freedom.

        1. Tents with cots and MREs do a great job of housing and feeding people. It works for the military just fine. It’s also exceedingly cheap, and given the mild LA weather, relatively comfortable.

    2. Why do you hate red tape, bureaucracy, unions, rent seeking contractors, Democratic politicians, zoning rules, environmental regulations, and others who want to get filthy rich off the naive compassionate folks of California?

    3. If you’re going to be homeless, Southern California is about as good as it’s going to get. There’s no winter, and the culture there is that being homeless and shitting on people’s sidewalks is fine. If you do it enough, the city will gift you a $700,000 house.

      You’re right that the $700k would go a lot further in say Nebraska, but the homeless people aren’t in Nebraska and Nebraska wouldn’t spend $700k on them even if they were there. California will spend it, hence why the homeless migrate there.

      Why would they choose to be homeless somewhere else?

      1. If you do it enough, the city will gift you a $700,000 house. California will spend it, hence why the homeless migrate there.

        Or at least a place to rest forever in a potter’s field – More than 1,000 homeless people died on the streets of Los Angeles County last year

        Hell of a lottery system there. So – how many of them homeless actually got the $700,000 house?

        1. Well, in typical California fashion they can’t figure out how to actually turn that money into housing, so not many.

          Even without the $700k house, the level of services available to the homeless in SoCal is much higher than almost anywhere else in the country. Even if everything were equal, the weather tilts things towards being in SoCal.

          If I’m gonna starve outdoors, why do it somewhere cold?

          1. Question: How much will a $700K house be worth after an addict lives in it for one month? One year?

          2. Plenty of them do it in Spokane. December/January average overnight lows are in the 20-25 degree range. Have no idea why any of them stay for that.

      2. If you build that welfare, they will come. If you don’t, many will go to work instead.

        I don’t see the morality or wisdom of forcing residents on average to pay $250 (4 million people, $1 billion spending of which probably at least half don’t pay any taxes, so the real burden for workers is much higher) to encourage the homeless to come and squat on public property, and make it dangerous for others.

    4. What I don’t understand – what I’ve never understood – is why anyone stays there.

      CA is still able to sell Depression-era myths to Okies. For better or worse, flyover country simply sucks at marketing itself and it doesn’t really do secular economic growth well either. The industries that understand mythmaking – Hollywood, advert/PR/media, tech/WallSt/IPO, tourism, etc – tend to be very coastal and are very comfortable (and controlled by those who are comfortable) lying about and manipulating reality.

      Seems to me that at some point that fails – like eating the seed corn over the winter – but it lasts a lot longer than is rational for it to last. Esp when there is no competition because the alternative sucks at marketing itself. It’s not like anyone can avoid living somewhere.

    5. Ackk. “consequent property” should have been “consequent poverty”.

    6. Frugality is not the way to create wealth. Entrepreneurship is.

    7. That’s what I’m not understanding. $600k isn’t even house level costs anymore. That’s mansion-level costs. How can they be spending this quantity of money on low-income housing?

    8. Salaries are higher where cost of living is higher. Also more jobs in certain cities. That explains why the San Francisco / San Jose Bay area has some of the highest costs and highest salaries.

  5. Who runs California?

    “It’s part of a plan championed by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who declined our interview request”

    Investigative!

    1. Eric Garcetti is a Naval Intelligence Lieutenant. He was not elected. He was “emplaced” to protect the Pentagon’s immoral drug and human trafficking.

  6. I don’t think it is mentioned anywhere in the article the reasons for the vast majority of the homeless being on the streets. Yes, housing is expensive in California but responsible people find a way to get indoors or they move to another location. But these homeless will not stop using alcohol and drugs and the mentally ill among them will not take their psychiatric medication. They’d rather get high. The ridiculous 9th Circuit’s assertion about cruel and unusual punishment ignores what they do to the people in the neighborhood. They aggressively panhandle and assault residents, harass businesses, and leave excrement and urine outside the entrances of commercial businesses. They scare the customers. The owners of the businesses are helpless if they can’t call police. So are residents who are afraid to walk to work or to the store. If I were a business or a homeowner I’d hire thugs to scare them away. Because the law no longer works for the people. It protects street scum on drugs instead of families.

    1. This is true of a lot of the homeless here in Colorado. There’s plenty of shelters, but most of them require you to not be drunk or high if you want to stay there. That proves to be too much to ask for a lot of people.

      I support people’s right to do whatever recreational drugs they’d like in whatever quantities they can afford, but I’m not subsidizing your housing so you can get high.

      1. Problem is – shelters are actually worse than the street except in bad weather. No place to store anything at all. Lots of dangerous enough people in close proximity with no protection when you sleep. The common facilities (place to eat, bathroom, shower, even a desk to work at or a chair to read in) close during most hours. Pretty much a solution to absolutely nothing except ‘how do we spend money and shove these people out of our eyesight’.

        This isn’t a new problem. Marginal or new person housing has been part of every village since villages first started growing into towns then cities. We used to have a large amount of SRO type housing in all cities. Now we have virtually none.

        1. I thought the idea was to provide basic necessities. I have no doubt those places suck to spend much time in, but they’re also what you can get for free and I’m not sure why we’d want to encourage people to want to live there indefinitely. I don’t see why we’re on the hook to provide personal storage, private bathrooms and reading nooks for the homeless. Beggars can’t be choosers.

          Note that I am not talking about private charity, they can set whatever standards they’d like and that their donors can support. I don’t see why free public housing should be higher quality than what some people pay for though. By design it should be undesirable, otherwise you end up with perverse incentives that encourage people to not work to improve their station in life. This already happens with some benefits, people choose not to take jobs because earning money would disqualify them from any number of social programs and result in a lower quality of life. Why work if it makes your life worse?

          1. I’m not sure why we’d want to encourage people to want to live there indefinitely.

            ‘Encourage’ is not the right word and creates exactly the sort of problem mindset. The homeless/marginal come FROM somewhere. It’s not somewhere else. It’s not an alien invasion. They are the the black sheep and the embarrassing and the willfully forgotten that come from every neighborhood in this country. We are unable to ACCEPT that – and certainly not publicly. The better the neighborhood, the less likely anyone is to publicly admit that Rosemary Kennedy has been lobotomized cuz she was making trouble. So we criminalize homelessness and the marginal. Hopefully ‘discourage’ them enough so they will fuck off somewhere else and we can foist that problem off on others. Problem solved.

            Despite what some commenters think, I am pretty certain that there is no city out there – not even SF – that says You know what we need is more homeless people. How can we encourage them to live here. Rather there are some cities that don’t criminalize as much or maybe not at all and others that beat them up with a baseball bat. Well obviously that’s gonna change where those who are transient go. But it is perverse to call that ‘encouragement’.

            1. Yeah, because enabling them has worked out so well for the West Coast cities.

              1. You’re right. Kicking them in the teeth does work. Works very well actually. And of course criminalizing homelessness works well to eliminate homelessness. Though not as well at actually eliminating spending unless of course one ignores the amount spent on incarceration.

                Suburbs are particularly good at this. You even mentioned one of them – Englewood. It has only one actual homeless facility – solely for women with kids. Which is fine but is hardly addressing a significant part of the homeless problem – just the sympathy-card part of it. So where do the homeless there go – 75 of them, 60% with presumably semi-crappy jobs in Englewood? A stretch of vacant floodland next to a highway. Well shut that shit down. Homeless problem now solved. Except of course that it does nothing of the kind. Just moves them 10 miles north to Denver – now 100% unemployed too and with obviously no way to commute 10 miles to work. So that suburb has just made the problem worse and more intractable and shoved that worse problem onto someone else’s plate. Which of course is all Denver’s fault because Denver ‘enabled’ them and ‘encouraged’ them. If only Denver too would kick them in the teeth.

                1. You’re not really appealing to reality here, just fee-fees. It’s the same shit that homeless “advocates” whine about every time the homeless turn decent areas into shitholes, and the residents have the gall to actually not want their neighborhood and the spaces their tax dollars pay for turned into said shithole.

                  The homeless congregate around urban areas precisely because urban areas are better-equipped to handle a welfare class than the suburbs or rural areas, and the hobo hotline is quite prolific at communicating where those places are. It doesn’t have anything to do with “kicking them in the teeth.”

                  1. And going east and north ain’t better. East of Aurora, the next facility is Hays Kansas and North Platte Nebraska. North its Longmont.

                    And WTF is a ‘hobo hotline’? You mean like an online directory of ANY actual resources where someone who is facing the immediate prospect of homelessness can actually find a name of someone they can contact locally? Yeah – in the 21st century, failing to put county-level resources (assuming they exist offline) online in order to save money by making sure no one can contact them is ‘kicking them in the teeth’. The Yellow Pages and phonebooks no longer exist.

                    1. And going east and north ain’t better. East of Aurora, the next facility is Hays Kansas and North Platte Nebraska. North its Longmont.

                      That point is whizzing way over your head.

                      And WTF is a ‘hobo hotline’?…Yeah – in the 21st century, failing to put county-level resources (assuming they exist offline) online in order to save money by making sure no one can contact them is ‘kicking them in the teeth’.

                      Yeah, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the areas where the homeless problem is particularly acute just happen to be the places where the most resources are allocated to (supposedly) helping them (even if it doesn’t actually work).

                2. And Englewood with one restricted facility and 30k peeps is infinitely better than its surrounding/nearby suburbs. There is in fact not a single homeless facility (or even a hit-hard-times-lets-prevent-them-from-being-homeless facility) apart from that one in Englewood in any suburb/town south or west of Denver until you hit Colorado Springs (south) or Glenwood Springs (west – more accurately part of Grand Junction area).

                  It’s why I laugh when libertarians-in-burbs talk about charity solving that. No – not only do YOU personally not do it. Neither do your neighbors or your churches unless there’s some photo-op attached. What you offer absent the PR is kick them in the teeth and send them elsewhere. And – it works. To make homelessness someone else’s problem.

                  1. Huh? Nowhere in these posts have I advocated for “more charity,” and said that I actually wanted more centers built. It’s right below in case you want to read it again. You then said that it won’t matter for shit because NIMBYs will whinge and prevent them from being built in the first place.

                    My main issue is that you’re complaining because I point out, rightly, that people don’t want the homeless shitting up their neighborhoods, and your response to that is just emotional appeals.

                    1. NO ONE wants the homeless shitting up their neighborhoods you moron. It is NIMBY everywhere. But the FACT is homelessness EXISTS. And it originates (certainly to the degree that it is drug/alcohol/mental induced) EVERYWHERE.

                      Pushing the problem to someone else does not solve the problem. Sticking your head up your ass in denial does not solve the problem.

                      But hey – if you think you can make better political hay by sticking your head up your ass – who am I to argue with that logic?

                    2. Your arguing against a point I never made. Try dropping the stupid emotional appeals and come back with something that’s rooted in the real world.

          2. I don’t see why we’re on the hook to provide personal storage, private bathrooms and reading nooks for the homeless. Beggars can’t be choosers…By design it should be undesirable…Why work if it makes your life worse?

            It’s not a matter of providing them what THEY want. Fail to provide a place where people can sleep without getting killed/robbed/raped, then they will find a way to avoid the crowd and sleep where its safer. Fail to provide a place to store stuff and they will cart it around and store it wherever they are. Fail to provide a place to shit where they actually are during the day and they will shit where they are.

            Your comment has that Victorian/moralistic/middleclass economics ‘for their own good’ tyranny stuff that is pervasive now. We used to have boarding houses and SRO’s. We have basically 100% eliminated those bottom two or three rungs on the housing ladder. Housing that, from that link, used to house 33-50% of the urban population in the mid-19th century — 20-30% by 1900 — 10% or so after we started subsidizing nuclear family homeownership. And that was then simply near 100% torn down from the 50’s to now. Replaced by ‘public shelters’ for 0.5% – 1.0% (and rental subsidies) – both of which are expensive rentier cronyism – so we can pretend everyone else at the lower end is doing just fine.

            This was not a housing option that simply disappeared like buggy whips cuz better stuff came around and everyone became above-average income and middle class. There are a ton of people who don’t ‘want’ to pay 25-50% for rent but HAVE to pay that cuz the other option is the street. It was an option that was deliberately destroyed – justified by for-their-own-good-economics (whether Marxist or Social Darwinist or Victorian do-gooder) – for all the reasons that every classical economist from Smith to George understood and wrote about.

        2. Problem is – shelters are actually worse than the street except in bad weather.

          They’re not any more dangerous than these hobovilles that get set up, such as the one in Englewood that was recently cleared out.

          1. You haven’t spent enough of other people’s money, spend ALL of their money. When that’s gone, steal it. When you can’t steal any more…. blame it on orange man, orange man bad. Your hearts in the right place, it’s your head, its stuck up your Obama.

        3. SRO housing is frequently awful. In the early 2000’s I pit together a loan to refinance one and raise extra money for a new roof and boiler that were desperately needed. Almost no one wanted to touch it. The rationale being that if there was a default that the lender would have to operate it, and operators usually have to have someone live in site. No normal person would ever want to live there, although the owner did.

          I finally got the deal done with some very expensive money. I visited the place frequently during the process for various reasons and learned firsthand how unpleasant the building and it’s tenants were. It sucked big time.

          The selling point that finally got the deal done was the fact that the block where the building was located was at the early stages of multiple renovations. The area being turned into offices, condos, eateries, etc.. less than three years later the building was sold to developers who turned it into a gastro pub, shops, and upstairs offices.

          No one wants cheap shitty housing for unpleasant, undesirable people around them in areas that have high real estate values. Even the local downtown mission was relocated over a mile outside the downtown area when property values climbed high enough.

          1. Yes SRO’s are pretty awful. I stayed in one in the early 80’s when I first moved to a city as a new grad. Cheap and shitty – but I moved out within a week once I heard the first 2am fight and gunfire. Course I was a grad – so I had the option of moving up a rung to a boarding house for a couple months (actually quite an interesting collection of people I met there – from my age to elderly – no families though) until I found roommates (the point where I now had to buy furniture).

            Not everyone had that option I had then to quickly move up to an ‘acceptable’ rung. NO ONE really has any of those options now cuz the SRO and boarding house rungs have disappeared. That’s a big reason mobility has dropped to the lowest rate ever in the US. Those low rungs were exactly what ‘new people’ moved into – in every town/village/city in the US. And the knowledge that they existed everywhere and always had is what made Americans more willing to up-and-move as well.

            Yeah no one wants cheap shitty housing nearby. Unless of course they need cheap shitty housing. And then what they need – and what a free market used to deliver in the US – is a CHOICE of cheap shitty housing.

      2. The problem is the US Military is flooding the streets of America with cheap narcotics – very much like the Japanese Empire did in Manchuria in the 1930’s. This market distortion leads to significant destabilization of the social fabric of our communities, all to support a socialist aggressive five sided polygon of profligacy.

        1. Take your computer and give it to someone who can use it, like a homeless person. Maybe they wont spout utter nonsense.

  7. Hey, homeless advocate. “Sharing” the sidewalks means that we all can use them to walk on to get to where we’re going, which is their purpose.

    It doesn’t mean that some of us get to claim a spot for themselves and live on it day and night.

  8. This video should be a public service announcement to the rest of the country to not adopt liberal economic and domestic policies that even resemble anything like California’s. Unless of course you want tent cities with people shitting on the streets in your neighborhood also.

    1. They’ve already started exporting it, Colorado gets a lot of California ex-pats and the Denver capitol building is essentially just a shanty town now.

      1. Wash Park used to be one of the best places to go on a nice day, now it’s a cesspool.

      2. The whole Civic Center is basically just a giant homeless camp now, and the problem is that you have a bunch of self-righteous homeless “advocates” in the metro area who are more concerned with enabling them to shit up the city than proposing actual solutions. Like, say, building treatment/detox holding centers, since the vast majority of these people aren’t folks that simply “had a run of bad luck.” They’re drug and alcohol addicts, typically with severe mental disorders, and more often than not their condition is entirely self-inflicted. These are not people who will ever be able to function in a normal social capacity.

        And the solution for that is not to ensure that they can squat wherever the hell they feel like so people who are actually contributing something to society don’t have to step over a piss and shit-soaked hobo to get into their home, or have the surrounding property and green spaces destroyed by people who can’t even take care of themselves.

        1. Any opposition to building treatment/detox centers comes from NIMBY propowners.
          It’s the same opposition to SRO’s or boarding houses or prisons or mental institutions. Yes I’m sure homeless advocates and lawyers will oppose the forcible detention of people there. And pretty much every libertarian except the ‘libertarians’-for-imprisoning-everyone-I-don’t-like wing of the R’s can at least see potential problems with that.

          There does need to be a better way to auction the ‘bads’ of NIMBY/zoning. To use the pricing system to better distribute the crappy-but-necessary. But you can fucking bet that property owners will oppose that too. And of course it ain’t like field of dreams – built a mental institution and the crazies will fill it and play.

          1. So what if the NIMBYs cry about it? What’s to stop the city or state from buying up land and setting these places up, besides a few inconvenient lawsuits? The places where the homeless congregate are almost exclusively dominated by Democrats; what are these NIMBYites going to do if the city goes ahead and sets these places up, vote Republican?

            And of course it ain’t like field of dreams – built a mental institution and the crazies will fill it and play.

            That’s the whole point. You may not like it, but a population dominated by the addicted and mentally ill is not going to voluntarily work through those issues to become independent members of society. In one way or another, they will ALWAYS be wards of the state. The homeless don’t congregate in the suburbs or rural areas because they get “kicked in the teeth”–they do so because urban areas have the resources to enable them to maintain some semblance of survival within their lifestyle.

            There’s a reason Seattle has a massive homeless problem, and it isn’t because there’s a crisis of “affordable housing.” Building a hundred tiny-home villages just gives the homeless a slightly nicer hoboville. It doesn’t even come close to addressing the underlying causes of why they’re homeless to begin with.

            The only difference between a tiny-home hoboville and some Brutalist, multi-story mental health treatment center is that the latter at least provides a way to quarantine and treat the homeless with these addiction and mental health issues. Maybe some of them would even get well enough to be productive members of society. But the reality is that the vast majority are going to either die there, or die in the streets.

            1. I occasionally talk to some of the more functional homeless here in Spokane. I’ve never encountered one that, although capable of holding some simple entry level job, is willing to work. That is anecdotal, but I suspect that it’s not uncommon.

              If you make it too easy to be a bum, more people will be bums.

          2. If you D’s didn’t foul up entire cities and then expect the rest of the country to bail you out, we wouldn’t have to consider razor ribbon day care centers.

  9. The problem in CA is that all the politicians think that homelessness is caused by the high cost of housing.
    It isn’t. It’s cause by substance abuse and mental illness, and that’s what we need be addressing. Build treatment centers on every corner.

    1. The voters passed the Steinberg bill in 2004 (aka the Mental Health Services Act). We won’t get anywhere unless we address the root causes of the market distortion – the Pentagon, NAFTA, and the Federal Reserve.

  10. Democrats assure me this has nothing to do with taxes and regulatory coercion. Republicans want to make sure I know that forcing women into involuntary labor does NOT cause housing shortages in These States or crime waves in Romania. What both looter parties are worried sick about is the right of the people to keep and bear arms possibly preserving the security of a free state.

    1. You’re such a bizarre shit sack.

  11. Oh common……. Its not a disaster; They’re all there saving our environment from that TERRIBLE industry (billionaire toilet manufacturer) made “climate change” and boycotting the industrial world.

    ITS EXACTLY WHAT THEY VOTED, SUPPORTED and INSISTED UPON.

    It’s baffling how liberal CA can make clear and utter contradiction seem so plausible.

  12. Zach, you should have consulted with Dr. Drew Pinski before you wrote this article.
    It is his contention that this is a substance abuse crisis and a mental health crisis, not an affordable housing crisis.
    The fact that your article does not mention mental illness nor drug abuse verges on journalistic malpractice.

  13. How much will a $600K unit be worth after a month of a drug addict living in it?

    1. $600.

  14. the key is to live some place where the climate makes year round homelessness untenable.

    110+ degree summers or freezing winters.

    1. Did Utah measure the “before” in the summer, and the “after” in the winter, per chance?

    2. There’s plenty of homeless people in the desert southwest and the northeast. The key here is that places like Portland, Seattle, and the San Francisco-San Diego AIDS Vector all have generous social aid programs for the homeless that get promoted along the national hobo hotline. Enabling the homeless in this way isn’t any different than western Europe telling millions of Middle East residents that “refugees welcome” and they’ll set you up with free housing and welfare that the native population will pay for.

  15. 700K per unit? You can buy a nice tiny house for about 50K, a comfortable pre-fab home for about 100K, or a very nice motor home for 200K (and it’s portable).

    1. The $700K units will be quite reasonably priced after having drug addicts living in them, they’ll be down to $10K in no time.

      1. Hell, my in-laws’ house is an absolute dump, and they’re white-collar professionals of sound mind with no drug or addiction issues whatsoever. I can’t imagine how fast these places would get destroyed by the homeless living in them. Probably inside of six months is a good bet to take.

  16. Like good socialists, they just ain’t spending enough money to fix an unfixable problem. Taxes need to be raised and politicians need to be paid more money.

  17. You have it all wrong. The purpose of spending millions in LA, SFC, or Seattle (and other liberal utopias) is NOT to end homelessness. It is to create and fund a perpetual homeless activist industry.

    Hey, somebody has to employ all those grads from Evergreen.

    1. The purpose of spending millions in LA, SFC, or Seattle (and other liberal utopias) is NOT to end homelessness. It is to create and fund a perpetual homeless activist industry.

      Basically–it just gets back to the Leninist/Maoist notion that revolution has to be an unceasing endeavor.

  18. They should be buying lots of wood-chippers, and put a $10 bounty on the homeless.

    1. I’m not sure about this idea.
      Who would clean up the mess?

  19. There could be an interesting SC case coming up re homeless – Martin v Boise.

    Not at all a fan of the 9th Circuit but they did come up with a good quote re the criminalizing of the homeless via say ‘camping bans’.

    The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. Anatole France

    1. Yeah, because a French Communist is someone we should be citing as an authority on social policy.

  20. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ
    pop over to this website……….. Read More

  21. Why are California and cities like SF and LA trying to keep the homeless in those cities? If you’re going to spend that kind of money to house people and keep them in state so they can vote Democrat, why not get more bang for your buck by building the addict houses in Barstow or somewhere like that? The homeless would be housed, and the streets of LA and SF would be cleaner?

    I guess the old saw about beggars can’t be choosers doesn’t apply to homeless people in California.

    1. Because the people of Barstow don’t have the administrative infrastructure, or social capital, to even begin accommodating thousands of homeless people the way San Francisco does. Double a rural area’s population with homeless people, and that rural area will fall apart in short order, and the homeless will just migrate back to San Francisco.

      1. Spokane’s homeless population has been quadrupled in less than two years because these cities have been busing their homeless to us. Spokane is in no way equipped, financially or through existing infrastructure, to accommodate this increase.

        We need to bus them back out.

  22. I have been homeless before. In my forties when the “Great Recession” and a failed relationship with a dishonest woman destroyed me financially. Fortunately, there was shelter available so I didn’t end up on the street. But I didn’t accept my situation and found work. Then a better job with more money after that. I make slightly above the median household income now. My apartment, where I monthly pay rent, water, trash, online service fees, pet rent, etc., while very nice is not something that could be sold for the price of a full-sized house. No one is going to just give me a permanent $700,000 apartment home with “no strings attached”. Foolishly, it seems, I’m one of the majority that prefers to work for a living and stay off drugs. And then pay taxes to support those who won’t. Silly me.

  23. We have problems because of too much and thus intrusive government. Toss in public schools which teach nothing and professional politicians which create racist laws (see:drug laws history) And who grants building permits that require all new housing be upscale? Who can loan more than they have for mortgages to people who do not qualify and do it by order of government? Banks? Yes. Who regulates every business out of business or out of the country? Government? Yes. Who wants socialism? Your kids and nobody anywhere else. Who kills the job market by having minimum wage laws? Government. What country would elect Obama twice simply because he is black? Then what country would try to elect a woman just because she is a woman?
    What do you do for your community that helps others? (tax does not count) I bet you do nothing.
    We have found the enemy and it is ___! (Fill in the fucking blank if you can you bigoted racist morons)

  24. The DEA is the largest drug cartel in the world, and the US Air Force flies in pallets of narcotics to military bases in the region to be distributed on the streets of Los Angeles County by protected drug Honduran gangs – all to protect Palmerola Air Base. That’s why Grant Gascon is running for DA – when Jackie Lacey’s poll numbers fell, the Pentagon freaked out and reassigned their drug network protector to SoCal. Then, you have the Federal Reserve centralizing credit creation so there is a net negative return on public investment into communities and so speculative asset bubbles are created in the housing market – making basic shelter unattainable for those on a median salary. DC created this crisis. It’s a monoparty mafia in bed with the national security state that is sucking the region dry.

  25. It’s so easy for politicians to piss away our hard-earned $$$ but these maroons will cause a long term depression because they won’t stop.
    Hope for the best prepare for the worst.

  26. Remember also California’s idea (actually it was the Builders idea) to force cities and counties to destroy pristine open lands for subdivisions under the ruse of bringing more low-cost housing to the market. Housing costs have soared since with little local availability where the jobs demand is primarily centered has nothing but traffic congestion to show for itself along with unneeded land destruction.

  27. A decent article but hardly comprehensive in scope.
    The article actually addresses slightly less than half of the homeless problem.
    Over half of the “Homelessness Problem” is people who refuse to move off the streets because moving into a shelter means “obeying the rules”, such as not doing drugs on the premises or staying on prescribed medication for the the treatment of mental conditions such as Schizophrenia.
    Until the Police have the ironclad authority to remove those from the streets who are habitual drug users and mentally ill, giving them the choice of going to a shelter of going to jail the problem is going to continue to grow. The only brake on that growth will be when the inevitable pandemics of sanitation related diseases start sweeping through these incubators for disease and start to debilitate the law abiding citizens who live in these areas.
    It’s already been predicted by competent medical authorities that Los Angeles is poised for an outbreak of Bubonic Plague, which one it infects humans quickly morphs into Pneumonic Plague. If such an outbreak occurs the quarantine measures that will be required will have repercussions far beyond the borders of California.

  28. It’s 99 percent drug addicts or insane people… We need to bring back asylums and forced drug treatment. I hate spending money on shit as much as the next guy on this site, but loonies are really one of those societal problems we have to collectively deal with one way or another… So if private foundations ain’t gonna fund nut houses, the guvmint needs to like it did pre Carter.

  29. “Controller’s Office reports that the city owns more than 7,500 lots, though neighborhood councils regularly fight to keep shelters out.”

    I wonder how many of these neighborhoods have, “Hate has no home here’, poster in the front lawns.

    No one more hypocritical than LA liberals.

  30. The billion+ government program is not going to help the homeless, it is just another corrupt government program used by politicians and corrupt government officials to steal from the people. They will use their contractors and get kickbacks. This is why they won’t partner with private charity organizations. This is why the private sector actually solves problems and government programs accomplish very little, often make the problem worse and always run over budget.

  31. CNN isn’t reporting this story so how can it be true?

  32. I am going to take a far out wild guess and say that when you promise free housing, free food, nothing in the way of peer pressure, you will get more and more homeless. So yes, if you live in a world where you think if you doubled down and provided $20billion it would reduce homelessness then you are dumber than a brick. Educate the brick that you you would be creating MORE homeless.

  33. I love hearing people speculate about something they don’t understand. I am an RN, worked in healthcare for over 35 years, I am also a veteran and was a 9/11 first responder. In the first 20 years of my career, I worked in mental health. In addition, I have a unique perspective of having worked on both coasts and in many large urban areas to draw comparisons. On January 1st, 2020 I will be joining the ranks of the homeless in Los Angeles. I am not a drug addict or suffering from crippling mental illness, I am not burdened by high rent, I am not here illegally. As we all seek to provide “our” answers to the underlying cause we fail to see the big picture or address the root cause of the problem.

    I have been diagnosed with a lesion on my spine that leaves me unable to work until It is treated. Under “medical assistance” the managed care company LA Care has worked overtime to delay and obstruct the necessary care I need knowing that my insurance is being canceled at the end of this month. I have contacted my local and state representatives about this and they have either outright ignored me or simply brushed me off.

    My insurance is being canceled because in the state of California if I finally can get disability which took me months to obtain, (still working on this), the state believes that if I am receiving temporary disability at the rate of 1800.00 a month I can afford to pay the 600.00 a month premium for my insurance through Covered California. That is in addition to my 1500.00 rent, 200.00-month utilities coupled with an outrageous cost of living expenses.

    Would disability have helped had it come sooner? Possibly. However, after calling non-stop for 3 weeks I was unable to get someone from state disability on the phone. Their office opens at 8 am and by 8:05 every day I called the voice cue was filled for the entire day. I called the governor’s office with no response or assistance offered. I called the local country supervisor Kathryn Barger who does not and will not respond or return any of my calls.

    I could write paragraphs more about my experiences and why this is happening but the crisis in California is not because of drug addiction, which occurs in every state. Nor is it because of mentally ill people which also occur in every state. Nor is it the weather because there are plenty of other states with nice weather. Nor is it the cost of housing because Miami has higher housing costs without this record number of homeless people. The reason this problem exists is twofold. For one the people in Southern California as a general rule have zero compassion or empathy for other people beyond themselves. Secondly, the elected officials of these compassionless people are as vapid and empty as they are. So while we all wring our hands and speculate about the cause of the crisis the answers are staring us right in the face.

    When a “republican” elected official like Kathryn Barger ignores a seasoned healthcare worker that lost their job protecting patient civil rights in a hospital in her district; a veteran and 9/11 first responder that has been sent in circles and treated in the most unprofessional and unethical manner by the social service support system that is supposed to be helping people and is now facing homelessness as a result of a lack of services and support than you have the answer to the question of why this area is drowning is a homeless crisis. As long as we continue to elect people like this and pretend that these peripheral symptoms are the actual cause we will continue to avoid addressing the root cause of the problem. I continue to elevate this issue to no avail in this state. People may find my story shocking or questionable but I can back every single part of it up. If you doubt me contact Kathryn Barger and her incompetent bully staff to see for yourself. (213) 974-5555 kathryn@bos.lacounty.gov

    1. You sound very virtuous. I would take it that there is no “back story” about your own personal calamities?

      1. Well sure there is back story –
        1) “temporary disability at the rate of $1800.00 a month” – You should be extremely THANKFUL for your disability check that pays more than many peoples full-time job.
        2) “That is in addition to !!![[my]]!!! 1500.00 rent, 200.00-month utilities coupled with an outrageous cost of living expenses.” — Maybe “beggars” have no right to be “choosers”… Perhaps its time MOVE AWAY from !!![my]!!! “outrageous cost of living” standards and live in that RV in the cheapest area available.

        LIKE SAY — Thousands of WORKING Americans have already done.

        But you will constantly and endlessly insist that — the world OWES me. How DARE the state ask you to change your spending habits after becoming disabled. Obviously the world OWES you a $1500 apartment at whatever location you shall desire… Obviously the world OWES you that security that I guess was never accounted for while making “good” money that was spent on “outrageous costs of living” that prevented saving for insurance premiums longer than a day down the road.

        BUT; If you want to base your sympathy story on how you could’ve been responsible for yourself BUT taxation (like Obamacare, Green-Energy Mob, Subsidizing) of which others have FORCED you to be a slave. Then — You’ll earn my sympathy.

      2. @ Doug
        while I have sympathy and understanding for your situation [the understanding coming from having been pushed “through the Disability Mill” by a Drunk Driver] you are flat out wrong when it comes to the number of Drug addled and off-medication Mentally Ill that infest Los Angeles streets.
        The cities own surveys and studies continue to confirm the data that at least half of the problem is Habitual Drug Addicts who will not abide by shelter rules, and the mentally Ill, particular Schizophrenics who refuse to stay on prescribed meds and are turning violent on a regular basis.
        Iff you are truly going to be made homeless by your medical condition you have my sympathy. Unfortunately, you will soon be faced with a “street level” education as to who actually comprise the bulk of the homeless in L.A.

    2. I’m sorry you’re having a bit of bad luck… It sucks. I have had plenty of shit things happen to me in life, and I’m sure you’ll pull through…

      And that’s the whole point. If you are the type of person you portray yourself to be, even if you become homeless for a minute at the height of your problems, you will immediately bounce back and get your shit together.

      I live in a city that has a higher homeless population per capita than LA! Almost all of them are druggies or insane. Surveys show this all over the place, as does my personal experience. Anybody who says otherwise is full of shit.

      Normal people, mostly living on the margins, DO become homeless sometimes… But they don’t STAY homeless. To STAY homeless for any length of time there needs to be something else wrong. Usually it’s mental health issues or drug issues. Period.

  34. Keep welcoming them, they will keep coming.

  35. If you inconvenience the vagrants enough they will leave.

  36. Whats the matter!!! Man has discarded God, taken him out of every school and institution. As brilliant as Man is he has NO solution for the disintegrating family structure. We have brought this on ourselves! What’s the matter all you liberals and leftist? You Must have the answer!

    1. Jb
      December.8.2019 at 7:58 pm
      “Whats the matter!!! Man has discarded God, taken him out of every school and institution…”

      Fuck off with your superstition and your stupidity.

  37. Australia recently deported their problems to Manus Island. It has plenty of space, raw materials, warm weather, and friendly people to show them around. Although Obama brought the muslims to the U.S., this might be an opportunity to relocate our problems and let them give it a try.

  38. OK, regardless of any claims otherwise, there is no “housing crisis” anywhere in California.
    None. Nowhere. Nohow.
    There are people who claim that those who cannot afford to live in certain CA zipcodes should be given enough taxpayer money to do do. That, in no way, constitutes a “crisis”; it constitutes bogus claims.
    Fuck off, slavers.

  39. I am making over $9k a month working part time. I stored being attentive to different human beings inform me how much money they are able to make on line so I decided to look into it. well, it turned into all actual and has completely modified my life. that is what I do….HERE…… http://www.9Klife.com

  40. 85% of street camps are actually METHADDICT pits, masqaurading as ‘the poor’ or ‘the homeless.’ the reason they have chosen to camp in streets is because they can’t get away with that shit if they avail themselves of social services programs! There is only ONE WAY to protect both: the addicts from being preyed upon by pushers, and the safety of the general community at large ~ and that is by ASYLUMING them all for analysis, diagnoses, and treaments.
    BUT, liberals fostering the breakdown of society HIDE THIS TRUTH from every discussion or report! They’re in on it!

  41. Garcetti and Newsom are incompetent buffoons who can’t even solve problems when their coffers are flush with cash from stupid voters who were foolish enough to believe their promises and trust their ability. If you vote for a liberal after watching this abject liberal policy failure, you are fool and a rube.

  42. It’s ridiculous. I mean, who would want to leave 44,000 people on the streets to die while you stick with your very expensive plan driving test nsw to help a few?”

  43. I make a big amount online work . How ??? Just u can done also with this site and u can do it Easily 2 step one is open link next is Click on Tech so u can done Easily now u can do it also here..>>> Click it here  

  44. Stay At Home Mom From New York Shared Her Secret On How She Was Able To Rake In $1500 Weekly From Online Work Just 3 Weeks After Losing Her Old Job………… Read more  

Please to post comments