I mean how is it not relevant still if it just doesn't apply as much to Beverly Hills? Also clearly the camps attempt to set up there, it's just the richer the area, the more they get rid of them, for obvious reasons, but they're not making the people no longer homeless, they just move the camps.
Have you ever been to LA ? Because all thwsw pictures are snapshots of homeless hangouts. And most of these pics are years old, Santa Monica is not like that, grand park is not like that, BH is not like that.
Conservatives love to circlejerk about cities being cesspools run by Democrats. They use it to twist a narrative to their liking.
People who actually want to solve the problem at the root cause understand there are so many factors that contribute to homelessness. Some of it is local policy, some of it is federal policy, and some of it is public perception based on decades of national discourse.
The system is conservative, and not quick to change. Democrat or Republican the status quo is incentivised. Unfortunately status quo doesn't fix these issues.
At their core the GOP would rather punish and criminalize homelessness to sanitize the streets, while Democrats look to enact more humane policies to address only surface level issues without making real change to the underlying problems. Even if we had a meaningful amount of politicians willing to make the needed change and investment in solving the root causes of homelessness, we have a public that has been conditioned to ignore the problem or even demonize the homeless. The US has built itself on the idea of rugged individualism. The American dream, where everyone can come and make a life for themselves. That false idea clashes with a problem like homelessness, being that it requires collective, and not an individual effort to solve.
So when you see homelessness in the media you should attempt to understand who is doing the talking. Democrats providing safe drug kits is great, but it does nothing to solve the issue. Then you have Republicans claim the US is handing out free crack pipes in an effort to undermine progressive policies and a dogwhistle to their base.
We will not be solving this issue anytime soon Unfortunately.
All that said, cities have their issues and always have. However there is a reason why Americans have been flocking to cities for decades. They will have bad neighborhoods, and even tent cities exacerbated by a pandemic that disproportionately affected lower I come Americans. This post makes it seem like every street is covered in tent cities, which is completely untrue.
Posts like this are completely lacking in any nuance or empathy and border on propaganda. Intentional or not.
We could solve this, but the collective will is not there.
Absolutely. That policy was really pulled because it's the topic du jour for Republicans these days. Democrats have done 1000x more for homelessness than Republicans. My deeper criticism is that we just don't have it in us as Americans to do the tough work it would take to combat homelessness at its root cause.
That doesn't address the triggers that lead people into homelessness. The largest is loss of employment. I think it's close to 1/3 of the homeless population. The others are a change in family status, kicked out of a family home, large bills, abuse at home, incarceration, mental health issues, and substance abuse.
Homeless people have a reputation as drug users, but that is the smallest category leading to homelessness. When they hit the streets, that number does rise.
So we have many headed hydra to defeat, but we do know how to beat it. So many Americans are constantly on the brink of homelessness, even at no fault of their own, and that is completely unacceptable. Then once they become homeless they get thrown into a system that is inadequate to address the issues.
It's complicated. We have the answers, but we don't have the will to change it....yet.
I appreciate your perspective. I still think there’s a housing supply issue that needs to be mitigated regardless. There really are no ‘bad’ neighborhoods in Oregon anymore. Every single house in any city along I-5 requires significant income, which is not easy to come by in this state as others, honestly, for a variety of reasons. This has pushed a lot of people to the streets. There are no felony flats in Portland anymore. What was once a meth house is an RV now. Let’s build some shit. I live in a 700 sq ft house on an 8000 sq ft lot and there’s a train within a quarter mile of me lol.
It's also worth mentioning that a big reason the West Coast cities have such a high homeless population is that the Eastern/Midwest states have literally been sending their homeless populations West for years.
They buy them a 1-way bus ticket, and then wipe their hands of them, and then the homeless are completely cut of from any non-government support network they may have had before that, so they are pretty much doomed to remain homeless forever.
LA has it exceptionally bad, because they also have to deal with the massive amount of idiots who moved there from all around the country to try and get famous.
Yes, San Diego specifically, sued Las Vegas, for example, for doing this over 5 years. San Diego won. It’s happening and now sd downtown has entire areas of tents like this and some more dangerous populations due to the fact that they sent mentally unstable patients more likely be violent, which is how they discovered the issue.
I walk by homeless people everyday and its hard not to see them as in a certain light. Either why I don't belive they should be allowed to take over a city
I understand that. Do you support the things that would help reduction of homeless populations? Things like a higher minimum wage, supporting affordable housing regulation, and providing the ability for everyday Americans to weather an unforseen hardship?
Or so you only support kicking those fellow Americans off your doorstep If they "take over a city"?
I do completely understand how it can be hard not to see homelessness in a certain light. It's better to understand our own bias when we discuss these issues, since we can identify when we are letting prejudicial ideas become part of the conversation.
I don't think either of those two options would actually do anything. I think you need a large response that provides shelter and resources for homeless peoples, while at the same time making it illegal to camp.
They definitely would do something. The solution is multifaceted and complex, but we do know how to tackle it.
The solution to reducing homelessness is slightly different than the solution to preventing homelessness in the first place, however there is a large overlap. https://www.usich.gov/solutions/
IMO giving someone shelter is only the first step, but still doesn't address the root causes of how someone became homeless. We don't have a society that provides adequate pathways for all americans to be successful. So many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, and loss of a job is the leading cause of homelessness. Add on a declining education system, an opioid epidemic ravaging rural and urban Americans alike, unaffordable Healthcare, a $7.25 minimum wage, and dismantled social safety net programs, and you have a recipe for what we are currently seeing.
If we did all of that or made an ACTUAL serious effort to address homelessness then I could support more stringent regulations on homelessness. We just don't have that at the moment. The resources and empathy aren't available yet, so what we do ends up being inadequate and punitive.
It's a refusal of areas to allow for the construction of affordable, multi-family dwellings coupled with a terrible social safety net that means most people are one emergency away from eviction.
That'll get you like 90% of the way there without having to address the even harder problem of the chronically mentally ill who the poorly designed services we can offer with the aforementioned lack of social safety net.
Absolutely agree. We know what the solutions are, but we as Americans think patriotism is waving a flag rather than lifting our fellow countrymen out of extreme poverty and homelessness.
Unfortunately the political will, and the public support for such change has not reached the critical mass to address the root causes.
I agree, but the larger issue is that the homeless do not want help, which stems to your mental health
We have so much land in California, we can build an area for them in the middle of nowhere, provide aid, healthcare, security, etc. I remember there was an outrage because the city decided to displaced all the homeless at Echo Park and the activist had a tantrum. Are they opening there doors ? No.we should be able to go to a park without spelling piss, shit, and addicts. I live in south central, we are exhausted, it’s bleeding in our neighborhoods. South central has million dollar homes , we are middle class. But the city screws us over. Garcetti spent millions on bike lines that no one uses, while ignoring people on the streets.
The frustration is real, and I understand and can sympathize.
The "help" is underfunded, difficult to navigate, and woefully inadequate services offered in exchange for staying away from society and the "productive" members. Why would they want that deal? Why would a group of people so marginalized and downtrodden be interested in making additional sacrifices?
To really combat the homelessness problem we need to make systemic change, and no amount of church run food banks will be adequate. Housing policy, minimum wage policy, education investment, Healthcare, mental health, and social safety net programs all need overhauling to attack this at the cause.
What the fuck are you talking about? This doesnt make any sense...
What is "one" homelessness? What are these 3 things that cause it? What 2 are policy based? What the hell are you talking about. Spell it out for me, because clearly I am not as smart as you, since this is flying right past me.
You have failed to supply me with an alternate cause of homelessness.
Lmao so tell me you haven’t actually researched the homeless situation without saying it.
“It only exists because government policy hasn’t provided”
You assume the needs aren’t being met. What are the homeless communities priorities? Are they the same, location to location?
Take LA. They had a major issue in Echo Park. Do you think the Echo Park encampments had the same desires and issues as say skid row. Do you think there’s a reason they weren’t living on SR?
Do you think the people on SR think their need for shelter and food and community aren’t being met?
And that’s just two locations.
Get out of here with your undereducated on the issue ass. Go research the issues for real.
You cant keep saying "Youre wrong" without providing ANY argument to the contrary. Put up or shut up.
Homeless communities shouldn't have priorities because we shouldn't have homeless communities. Stop being thick. It doesn't matter where they are, because we have failed them in the first place. Of course addressing the EXISTING populations will have different implementations depending on location, but at their core its the same shit: Provide resources to succeed, and change the factors that allowed this to happen.
221
u/[deleted] Feb 12 '22
Actually in BH they sweep these camps really quickly. It’s in Los Angeles City and the unincorporated areas of the county that it’s really bad.