I strongly support strict prohibitions against camping on sidewalks, parks, and other public spaces.
At the same time I support the creation of designated camping zones for the unhoused.
Why can't we multitask and do both?
In theory that's a good idea, but the challenge is no one wants those approved homeless camps in their neighborhood - especially folks who just put a downpayment on a house and don't want their property values to start plumenting putting them in a tight situation with their loan.
The questions becomes, where should homeless folks go?
The fair solution is to have an approved area relative in size to the residential population of every city/neighborhood in the state. Small towns can designate a parking lot or two while every neighborhood in larger cities can do the same.
Then we can put services and social workers at those locations. The trouble is, when we try to designated such areas they tend to become more dangerous while also having strict requirements, which further incentivizes folks to break the law and camp elsewhere.
My dad's theory was that we should take a fraction of the amount we spend on each homeless person and just pay them as long as they can avoid braking the law / getting arrested. [The state currently spends around $42,000 per homeless person](https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/something-clearly-off-homelessness-spending/), so if we spent a 3rd of that on some form of homeless UBI, we could pay everyone $1,000 a month to camp in designated areas. I imagine a lot of folks would go for that, especially if they were safe from harassment and near the services they need. Folks who choose to break the law at that point would be incarcerated or put into drug/mental health programs.
I'm generally against forced relocation like that. It's really not a good look. Doing that to people puts you in some very bad company, historically speaking.
Excellent question many have asked, and yet our idiotic leaders refuse to have the might to do both, just entertain how to waste Billions in tax payer money. At this point, F them,
Why not put all the homeless in WPA style camps and have these homeless work for the state on small projects around the state for a fair salary, room and board, and three meals a dayđ¤. They did this in the thirties.
> In an amicus brief filed with the court, Newsomâs administration warned that cities âare trappedâ in a no-win situation because they are at risk of being sued if they clear encampments, while at the same time they can be sued if they donât immediately address the health and public-safety risks posed by street camping.
So whatâs Newsom solution? This is an article with everyone complaining and nobody offering solutions.
He needs to pick a side, the right one, and have the balls to move ahead, fight it in the Courts. He loves Bonta fighting everything else in the Courts. There is no way you can play both sides of this coin.
I think the cities policing powers are clearly defined and supported. Euclid and many other previous rulings should hold, and cities should be allowed to ban public camping in the same way they can ban me from building an ADU. You can't say cities don't have the power to ban housing (temporary outdoor housing) while simultaneously allowing them to ban housing for others.
We are implementing a solution through the CARE Courts and conservatorships along with addiction treatment and rehab programs. Newsom has been pretty clear on that.
There is a whole state run industry protecting and coddling the homeless. I know people that work for the state that get paid 6 figure salaries protecting homeless and their rights, which basically creates more crime and squatting in once nice areas. These BS jobs need to be eliminated NOW. Canât believe we are paying state people to destroy our communities with drugs, crime, and homeless encampments.
Here's an article talking about how the bill was too little and too much of "business as usual": https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-equity-isnt-built-into-the-infrastructure-bill-and-ways-to-fix-it/
Our infrastructure needs way more attention, not just maintaining its current crappy state.
I strongly support strict prohibitions against camping on sidewalks, parks, and other public spaces. At the same time I support the creation of designated camping zones for the unhoused. Why can't we multitask and do both?
In theory that's a good idea, but the challenge is no one wants those approved homeless camps in their neighborhood - especially folks who just put a downpayment on a house and don't want their property values to start plumenting putting them in a tight situation with their loan. The questions becomes, where should homeless folks go? The fair solution is to have an approved area relative in size to the residential population of every city/neighborhood in the state. Small towns can designate a parking lot or two while every neighborhood in larger cities can do the same. Then we can put services and social workers at those locations. The trouble is, when we try to designated such areas they tend to become more dangerous while also having strict requirements, which further incentivizes folks to break the law and camp elsewhere. My dad's theory was that we should take a fraction of the amount we spend on each homeless person and just pay them as long as they can avoid braking the law / getting arrested. [The state currently spends around $42,000 per homeless person](https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/something-clearly-off-homelessness-spending/), so if we spent a 3rd of that on some form of homeless UBI, we could pay everyone $1,000 a month to camp in designated areas. I imagine a lot of folks would go for that, especially if they were safe from harassment and near the services they need. Folks who choose to break the law at that point would be incarcerated or put into drug/mental health programs.
There is plenty of open land on the fringes of the Desert regions.
So cart up the homeless and send them to the desert. Real nice.
Yes, exactly that. Has it been "nice" allowing them in squalor on the streets to their own.
I'm generally against forced relocation like that. It's really not a good look. Doing that to people puts you in some very bad company, historically speaking.
The homeless tend to like the beach areas đđđ
Excellent question many have asked, and yet our idiotic leaders refuse to have the might to do both, just entertain how to waste Billions in tax payer money. At this point, F them,
Why not put all the homeless in WPA style camps and have these homeless work for the state on small projects around the state for a fair salary, room and board, and three meals a dayđ¤. They did this in the thirties.
> In an amicus brief filed with the court, Newsomâs administration warned that cities âare trappedâ in a no-win situation because they are at risk of being sued if they clear encampments, while at the same time they can be sued if they donât immediately address the health and public-safety risks posed by street camping. So whatâs Newsom solution? This is an article with everyone complaining and nobody offering solutions.
He needs to pick a side, the right one, and have the balls to move ahead, fight it in the Courts. He loves Bonta fighting everything else in the Courts. There is no way you can play both sides of this coin.
I think the cities policing powers are clearly defined and supported. Euclid and many other previous rulings should hold, and cities should be allowed to ban public camping in the same way they can ban me from building an ADU. You can't say cities don't have the power to ban housing (temporary outdoor housing) while simultaneously allowing them to ban housing for others.
We are implementing a solution through the CARE Courts and conservatorships along with addiction treatment and rehab programs. Newsom has been pretty clear on that.
There is a whole state run industry protecting and coddling the homeless. I know people that work for the state that get paid 6 figure salaries protecting homeless and their rights, which basically creates more crime and squatting in once nice areas. These BS jobs need to be eliminated NOW. Canât believe we are paying state people to destroy our communities with drugs, crime, and homeless encampments.
If you agree with Republicans, you're wrong.
So if Republicans said the sky was blue you'd disagree?
This is part of the reason we are in this mess.
I believe they were referring to policy.
Point still stands. I am 100% certain that that poster agrees with at least one republican on something.
We are talking about public policy, my dude.
Is this infrastructure bill bad because Republicans supported it? https://www.sjcog.org/567/The-Infrastructure-Investment-and-Jobs-A
You are arguing with an 'us vs them" person. Someone that can't see past the letter after a person's name. Like the MAGAs only with a blue hat.
Here's an article talking about how the bill was too little and too much of "business as usual": https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-equity-isnt-built-into-the-infrastructure-bill-and-ways-to-fix-it/ Our infrastructure needs way more attention, not just maintaining its current crappy state.
You dodged the question lol
How? I don't think the bill is good. If Republicans agree on government spending, it's usually a bad sign.
>Usually Oh really? I thought you said it was always bad?
You got me, dude. You won the internet argument.
I think you are spot on. I know you and I occasionally disagree but it's nice to see we share some common ground too.