Thanks for doing that leg work. We need more Real True Americans like him and his son that he is raising right way.

35 million isn't that enough to build some permenent housing

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/19/751802740/amid-homelessness-crisis-los-angeles-restricts-living-in-vehicles


Amid Homelessness Crisis, Los Angeles Restricts Living In Vehicles

LISTEN 3:44

Toggle more options
August 19, 20195:04 AM ET
Heard on Morning Edition
ANNA SCOTT
FROM
KCRW

RVs line neighborhood streets in Los Angeles, where some 10,000 people live in vehicles.
Anna Scott/KCRW
Along a big, commercial street in L.A.'s North Hollywood area, near a row of empty storefronts, about a half dozen motor homes sat parked on a recent morning. Inside one of them, 67-year-old Edith Grays and her husband watched TV with the door open. Grays said they'd been there a few days, despite a two-hour parking limit.

"Thank God they're not bothering us right now," she said.

It's not unusual to see clusters of campers around the city. Grays is one of nearly 10,000 people who live in vehicles inside L.A. city limits. Some take shelter in cars, others in vans or trucks, but RVs are the most visible. They're also the most difficult to park especially now.

L.A.'s City Council recently reinstated an ordinance that bans sleeping overnight in vehicles in residential areas. The law also forbids living in a vehicle within a block of a park, school or daycare. Tickets for violating the rules start at $25 for a first offense, $50 for the second time and $75 after that.


RVs line neighborhood streets in Los Angeles, where some 10,000 people live in vehicles.
Anna Scott/KCRW
Along a big, commercial street in L.A.'s North Hollywood area, near a row of empty storefronts, about a half dozen motor homes sat parked on a recent morning. Inside one of them, 67-year-old Edith Grays and her husband watched TV with the door open. Grays said they'd been there a few days, despite a two-hour parking limit.

"Thank God they're not bothering us right now," she said.

It's not unusual to see clusters of campers around the city. Grays is one of nearly 10,000 people who live in vehicles inside L.A. city limits. Some take shelter in cars, others in vans or trucks, but RVs are the most visible. They're also the most difficult to park especially now.

L.A.'s City Council recently reinstated an ordinance that bans sleeping overnight in vehicles in residential areas. The law also forbids living in a vehicle within a block of a park, school or daycare. Tickets for violating the rules start at $25 for a first offense, $50 for the second time and $75 after that.

Article continues after sponsor message

Neighborhoods divided

Residents who support the restrictions say vehicle encampments have caused parking shortages and sanitation issues. Critics say that without alternatives to parking on the street, the rules are inhumane.

"This is a stupid law," said Mel Tillekeratne, executive director of a homelessness nonprofit called The Shower of Hope, during a recent public meeting. "This law...is going to directly contribute to these people being on the street."

For Edith Grays, who ran a window-washing business with her husband until he had a series of strokes and couldn't work, losing their motorhome is a big fear. She said they moved into it after not being able to afford rent anymore and she takes care to avoid being ticketed or towed. When asked how much of her time is spent looking for parking or planning where to park next, Grays replied: "All of it."

Homelessness Strains Compassion For Some Los Angeles Residents
NATIONAL
Homelessness Strains Compassion For Some Los Angeles Residents
"It's very difficult," she said. "It causes a lot of stress in my life."

Just a couple of miles away, however, homeowner Walter Hall says RV encampments have choked major streets, and that public urination by people living in vehicles has been a problem for at least one local park. "That's the kind of thing we would prefer not to see," he said.

Hall supports the city having rules around vehicle dwelling, but said enforcement should be tougher. A 2018 report from the Los Angeles Police Department said that officers issued about 10 citations a month, partly because it's difficult to confirm when people are living in vehicles.

One result, Hall said, is that the restrictions mostly just shuffle people from one location to another.

"They disappear one place only to reappear someplace else," he said.

A national problem

Los Angeles isn't the only city struggling to balance the rights of those with homes and the rights of those without homes. Over the past decade, municipalities around the country with large homeless populations have passed laws banning activities like panhandling or sleeping in public areas.

Ordinances limiting where people can live in vehicles are now the fastest-growing type of such restrictions, according to the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.

For decades it was completely illegal to live in a vehicle in L.A. But in 2014, as homelessness swelled, that policy was struck down in federal court. The city then came up with the current ordinance, but it expired in July, so the city council had to vote on renewing it for another six months.

It's unconscionable that they would be criminalized.
Erika Feresten, Los Angeles resident
One reason it had lapsed is that it was intended to be a stop-gap while the city expanded its safe parking program, which provides after-hours lots specifically designated for overnight vehicle camping. The program also provides security and bathroom access. But that plan has lagged, partly due to budget issues, and L.A. has only about 100 safe parking spaces for more than 5,000 vehicles in which people live.

The day of the city council vote on extending the parking restrictions, dozens of opponents showed up at city hall to argue that without safe parking options, the policy is cruel.

"Several of the families at my children's elementary school are struggling with homelessness," said Erika Feresten. "It's unconscionable that they would be criminalized."

After hearing nearly an hour of solid opposition, the council voted 13-0 to reinstate the rules, prompting the crowd to start chanting, "Shame on you!"

Despite Increased Spending, Homelessness Up 12% In Los Angeles County
NATIONAL
Despite Increased Spending, Homelessness Up 12% In Los Angeles County
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti says he expects to add another 200 safe parking spaces in the next few months. In the meantime, he said, the city has homeless outreach teams dedicated to finding people in vehicles and connecting them with social services.

"We want to make it easier" for people living in vehicles, Garcetti said, "but we also have to have that balance...making sure that it's not going to be chaos out there."

The parking restrictions will go to the city council again early next year.

concordtom said:

---

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/19/751802740/amid-homelessness-crisis-los-angeles-restricts-living-in-vehicles


Amid Homelessness Crisis, Los Angeles Restricts Living In Vehicles

LISTEN 3:44

Toggle more options
August 19, 20195:04 AM ET
Heard on Morning Edition
ANNA SCOTT
FROM
KCRW

RVs line neighborhood streets in Los Angeles, where some 10,000 people live in vehicles.
Anna Scott/KCRW
Along a big, commercial street in L.A.'s North Hollywood area, near a row of empty storefronts, about a half dozen motor homes sat parked on a recent morning. Inside one of them, 67-year-old Edith Grays and her husband watched TV with the door open. Grays said they'd been there a few days, despite a two-hour parking limit.

"Thank God they're not bothering us right now," she said.

It's not unusual to see clusters of campers around the city. Grays is one of nearly 10,000 people who live in vehicles inside L.A. city limits. Some take shelter in cars, others in vans or trucks, but RVs are the most visible. They're also the most difficult to park especially now.

L.A.'s City Council recently reinstated an ordinance that bans sleeping overnight in vehicles in residential areas. The law also forbids living in a vehicle within a block of a park, school or daycare. Tickets for violating the rules start at $25 for a first offense, $50 for the second time and $75 after that.


RVs line neighborhood streets in Los Angeles, where some 10,000 people live in vehicles.
Anna Scott/KCRW
Along a big, commercial street in L.A.'s North Hollywood area, near a row of empty storefronts, about a half dozen motor homes sat parked on a recent morning. Inside one of them, 67-year-old Edith Grays and her husband watched TV with the door open. Grays said they'd been there a few days, despite a two-hour parking limit.

"Thank God they're not bothering us right now," she said.

It's not unusual to see clusters of campers around the city. Grays is one of nearly 10,000 people who live in vehicles inside L.A. city limits. Some take shelter in cars, others in vans or trucks, but RVs are the most visible. They're also the most difficult to park especially now.

L.A.'s City Council recently reinstated an ordinance that bans sleeping overnight in vehicles in residential areas. The law also forbids living in a vehicle within a block of a park, school or daycare. Tickets for violating the rules start at $25 for a first offense, $50 for the second time and $75 after that.

Article continues after sponsor message

Neighborhoods divided

Residents who support the restrictions say vehicle encampments have caused parking shortages and sanitation issues. Critics say that without alternatives to parking on the street, the rules are inhumane.

"This is a stupid law," said Mel Tillekeratne, executive director of a homelessness nonprofit called The Shower of Hope, during a recent public meeting. "This law...is going to directly contribute to these people being on the street."

For Edith Grays, who ran a window-washing business with her husband until he had a series of strokes and couldn't work, losing their motorhome is a big fear. She said they moved into it after not being able to afford rent anymore and she takes care to avoid being ticketed or towed. When asked how much of her time is spent looking for parking or planning where to park next, Grays replied: "All of it."

Homelessness Strains Compassion For Some Los Angeles Residents
NATIONAL
Homelessness Strains Compassion For Some Los Angeles Residents
"It's very difficult," she said. "It causes a lot of stress in my life."

Just a couple of miles away, however, homeowner Walter Hall says RV encampments have choked major streets, and that public urination by people living in vehicles has been a problem for at least one local park. "That's the kind of thing we would prefer not to see," he said.

Hall supports the city having rules around vehicle dwelling, but said enforcement should be tougher. A 2018 report from the Los Angeles Police Department said that officers issued about 10 citations a month, partly because it's difficult to confirm when people are living in vehicles.

One result, Hall said, is that the restrictions mostly just shuffle people from one location to another.

"They disappear one place only to reappear someplace else," he said.

A national problem

Los Angeles isn't the only city struggling to balance the rights of those with homes and the rights of those without homes. Over the past decade, municipalities around the country with large homeless populations have passed laws banning activities like panhandling or sleeping in public areas.

Ordinances limiting where people can live in vehicles are now the fastest-growing type of such restrictions, according to the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.

For decades it was completely illegal to live in a vehicle in L.A. But in 2014, as homelessness swelled, that policy was struck down in federal court. The city then came up with the current ordinance, but it expired in July, so the city council had to vote on renewing it for another six months.

It's unconscionable that they would be criminalized.
Erika Feresten, Los Angeles resident
One reason it had lapsed is that it was intended to be a stop-gap while the city expanded its safe parking program, which provides after-hours lots specifically designated for overnight vehicle camping. The program also provides security and bathroom access. But that plan has lagged, partly due to budget issues, and L.A. has only about 100 safe parking spaces for more than 5,000 vehicles in which people live.

The day of the city council vote on extending the parking restrictions, dozens of opponents showed up at city hall to argue that without safe parking options, the policy is cruel.

"Several of the families at my children's elementary school are struggling with homelessness," said Erika Feresten. "It's unconscionable that they would be criminalized."

After hearing nearly an hour of solid opposition, the council voted 13-0 to reinstate the rules, prompting the crowd to start chanting, "Shame on you!"

Despite Increased Spending, Homelessness Up 12% In Los Angeles County
NATIONAL
Despite Increased Spending, Homelessness Up 12% In Los Angeles County
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti says he expects to add another 200 safe parking spaces in the next few months. In the meantime, he said, the city has homeless outreach teams dedicated to finding people in vehicles and connecting them with social services.

"We want to make it easier" for people living in vehicles, Garcetti said, "but we also have to have that balance...making sure that it's not going to be chaos out there."

The parking restrictions will go to the city council again early next year.

---

Welcome to Los Angeles. Really good post to bring in parking. Another post was about that developers have no capital.

So let's talk what is happening on the ground about homelessness given that the City is using all its housing funds to keep tenants in about to be decontrolled rentals (read my initial posts). Since the City has no resources due to stupid past decisions, it has decided to give developers City property to build apartments. They also have incentives to get around onerous city rules (what may be onerous to a developer may be a quality of life issue for those who live and work in the area as will be discussed). So the RFP's go out and here are the bid qualifications on what is currently a SMALL City parking lot in Westwood, on a street with some of the highest traffic volume in in the nation (as a commercial property with this type of visiblity, the lot is worth huge bucks):

Tier 3 development: 27 units max, a FAR of 1:5:1, a 45 foot height limit, and mixed use of up to 3 stores permitted. This is the fail safe in case they can't get a low income housing developer. No parking required for any units rented to target population (tenants with low enough income).

Tier 4: All affordable housing. 80% increase in density (53 units), FAR of 4:25:1, no parking required, whatever height needed.

Tier 5 Permanent Supporting Housing (this means the rent decontrol in the affordable housing rules doesn't apply): unlimited density, no parking requirements, and a choice of incentives related to FAR, height, open space (you can have none), setbacks (won't the neighbors love this), etc. This is aimed at non-profit developer, since no private capital would touch this.

Four bids come back. Three are tier 3 and one is Tier 4. NONE OF THEM MEET THE MINIMUM BID REQUIREMENTS. Attended the community meeting on the project at the request of a tenant in a retail property a block away. The tenant, a large retailer, is concerned their parking lot will be swamped by non-customers, but is otherwise supportive of housing for the site (future customers?). LA for all its faults seems to be transparent and good about keeping the community informed. And that community is pissed. The lot is on a corner, and behind the lot are large apartment or condos, and a block down is what used to be track houses that now sell for a small fortune. The tier 4 project gets the most abuse. There is at the risk of understatement, insufficient parking in the area and now you want to take away a parking that our guests use (because the street parking is taken by residents as the parking lots in the apartments and condos can only accomodate around 1 car per unit), and replace it with a large project with no parking? And the building is way too high for the neighborhood, the setback issue is a non-starter for the people next door, and it goes on. But a good number of people don't like the tier 3 bids either. Several of the attorneys representing those nearby have shade studies (yes there is such a thing) indicating that even 45 feet is too high. If they rent to the "wrong" people there is insufficient parking, etc. (IMO, this is red herring, given what you can charge for rent in Westwood the developer is renting to well paid Google employees, as Google is building a big campus nearby), and lot of other complaints that tell me a CEQA fight is coming.

But the biggest complaint is why would you build a dense housing project here? Why not sell the property for big bucks for retail or office (probably medical) development consistent with the the surrounding property (which means have its own parking), and buy and rehab some run down housing (there is some south in Culver City about 2 miles away) and fill them with lower income people? No objections from the neighbors since the properties already exist. And then, to our amazement, some lawyer representing a Culver City owner even offered to exchange properties. The response: there only is authority to build on City property. No thanks.

Then the City announces that despite none of the bids meeting the minimum bid criteria, they are not rejected (which violates State statue), and that they are going to grade the bids. At that point, the lawyers in the crowd (other than me) threaten to sue, and the meeting breaks-up. Welcome to LA.

The affluent hollywood liberals could single handedly solve this problem. But that would require sacrifice -- action behind rhetoric.

GBear4Life said:

---

The affluent hollywood liberals could single handedly solve this problem. But that would require sacrifice -- action behind rhetoric.

---

What would that be?
Give money? How much would it cost?
Is that your proposed solution?

Who would be paying the money?
Please list statistics, else you are merely firing potshots.

Further, is this a one-time fix?
What about the new homeless entering into such a state - how are they to be dealt with?
Perhaps you can detail what is causing folks to fall into homelessness, so we can deal with that from a systemic viewpoint: cause/remedy.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Welcome to Los Angeles. Really good post to bring in parking. Another post was about that developers have no capital.

So let's talk what is happening on the ground about homelessness given that the City is using all its housing funds to keep tenants in about to be decontrolled rentals (read my initial posts). Since the City has no resources due to stupid past decisions, it has decided to give developers City property to build apartments. They also have incentives to get around onerous city rules (what may be onerous to a developer may be a quality of life issue for those who live and work in the area as will be discussed). So the RFP's go out and here are the bid qualifications on what is currently a SMALL City parking lot in Westwood, on a street with some of the highest traffic volume in in the nation (as a commercial property with this type of visiblity, the lot is worth huge bucks):

Tier 3 development: 27 units max, a FAR of 1:5:1, a 45 foot height limit, and mixed use of up to 3 stores permitted. This is the fail safe in case they can't get a low income housing developer. No parking required for any units rented to target population (tenants with low enough income).

Tier 4: All affordable housing. 80% increase in density (53 units), FAR of 4:25:1, no parking required, whatever height needed.

Tier 5 Permanent Supporting Housing (this means the rent decontrol in the affordable housing rules doesn't apply): unlimited density, no parking requirements, and a choice of incentives related to FAR, height, open space (you can have none), setbacks (won't the neighbors love this), etc. This is aimed at non-profit developer, since no private capital would touch this.

Four bids come back. Three are tier 3 and one is Tier 4. NONE OF THEM MEET THE MINIMUM BID REQUIREMENTS. Attended the community meeting on the project at the request of a tenant in a retail property a block away. The tenant, a large retailer, is concerned their parking lot will be swamped by non-customers, but is otherwise supportive of housing for the site (future customers?). LA for all its faults seems to be transparent and good about keeping the community informed. And that community is pissed. The lot is on a corner, and behind the lot are large apartment or condos, and a block down is what used to be track houses that now sell for a small fortune. The tier 4 project gets the most abuse. There is at the risk of understatement, insufficient parking in the area and now you want to take away a parking that our guests use (because the street parking is taken by residents as the parking lots in the apartments and condos can only accomodate around 1 car per unit), and replace it with a large project with no parking? And the building is way too high for the neighborhood, the setback issue is a non-starter for the people next door, and it goes on. But a good number of people don't like the tier 3 bids either. Several of the attorneys representing those nearby have shade studies (yes there is such a thing) indicating that even 45 feet is too high. If they rent to the "wrong" people there is insufficient parking, etc. (IMO, this is red herring, given what you can charge for rent in Westwood the developer is renting to well paid Google employees, as Google is building a big campus nearby), and lot of other complaints that tell me a CEQA fight is coming.

But the biggest complaint is why would you build a dense housing project here? Why not sell the property for big bucks for retail or office (probably medical) development consistent with the the surrounding property (which means have its own parking), and buy and rehab some run down housing (there is some south in Culver City about 2 miles away) and fill them with lower income people? No objections from the neighbors since the properties already exist. And then, to our amazement, some lawyer representing a Culver City owner even offered to exchange properties. The response: there only is authority to build on City property. No thanks.

Then the City announces that despite none of the bids meeting the minimum bid criteria, they are not rejected (which violates State statue), and that they are going to grade the bids. At that point, the lawyers in the crowd (other than me) threaten to sue, and the meeting breaks-up. Welcome to LA.

---

YIKES.

concordtom said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

The affluent hollywood liberals could single handedly solve this problem. But that would require sacrifice -- action behind rhetoric.

---

What would that be?
Give money? How much would it cost?
Is that your proposed solution?

Who would be paying the money?
Please list statistics, else you are merely firing potshots.

Further, is this a one-time fix?
What about the new homeless entering into such a state - how are they to be dealt with?
Perhaps you can detail what is causing folks to fall into homelessness, so we can deal with that from a systemic viewpoint: cause/remedy.

---

Wow, you sound like a fiscal conservative. When did actual cost of entitlements come into play when we are spending other people's money and claiming someone else is not doing enough? I thought progressives in CA were all for spending without a budget as long as it was someone else's money and as long as they don't actually have to make sacrifices (such as allowing affordable housing near where they live or near public transportation).

This is mainly a drug problem that is not solved by being compassionate. We need tough love for those who are addicted, and force them into either recovery program or jail. Not sure allowing them to suffer in the street and creating health risk for everyone else is even the compassionate thing to do anyway even if it is the most expedient thing to do for moral superiority. For those who are just falling on hard times, I would be fully supportive of more tax dollars to provide temporary support for job training, job search assistance, and housing. Getting people who want to work some help to be productive is money well spent, even if the money is coming from me.

I am clueless as to how the liberal mayors of SF and LA have been spending all that money they raised. Anyone have any idea?

I can't speak for SF. When it comes to housing, Garcettil is trying - IMO he and the rest of the politicians seem overmatched by the past neglect, decades of imposing rules and regulations on housing development that make it so expensive as to drive capital away, a voter base that is resisting density or unwilling to work on solutions to mitigate against the problems density brings (how about incentives for developing parking lots in high density areas?). I know the head poltician facing the problem is always blamed, but this homeless problem was decades in the making.

concordtom said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

The affluent hollywood liberals could single handedly solve this problem. But that would require sacrifice -- action behind rhetoric.

---

What would that be?
Give money? How much would it cost?
Is that your proposed solution?

Who would be paying the money?
Please list statistics, else you are merely firing potshots.

Further, is this a one-time fix?
What about the new homeless entering into such a state - how are they to be dealt with?
Perhaps you can detail what is causing folks to fall into homelessness, so we can deal with that from a systemic viewpoint: cause/remedy.

---

Maybe the celebs might have the political juice to get entitlements? Lack of capital is one problem which might be helped by non-profits supported by celebs, but there are a lot of other moving parts.

calbear93 said:

---

Wow, you sound like a fiscal conservative.

---

I suppose you haven't read any of my posts about the deficit, how absurd it is for the Republican Party to try and claim they are fiscally conservative, or how stupid it is for any voting Republican to think that they are.

calbear93 said:

---

I thought progressives in CA were all for spending without a budget as long as it was someone else's money and as long as they don't actually have to make sacrifices

---

The way I see it, California Progressives are not as stupid as California Conservatives. California Progressives understand that there is a cancer in the White Horse, that the Republican Party is self-deluded. California Progressives wish above all else to see and speak the truth, to cut that cancer out so that we may have a California in the future.

Then, once that is accomplished, we can address the sacrifices that WE all need to make. California Progressives would be glad to have the ability to make policy which requires our sacrifice to make the society better.

The way I see it, California Conservatives are not conservative at all. They are selfish losers only interested in their own pocket, their own neighborhood, their own "team" winning.

If California Conservatives had a football team with a 0-16 record, and it was revealed the players were all breaking the rules by using steroids and HGH, and that the management was engaged in a huge spying operation to steal the opponents game plans, or even deflate the footballs.... these so-called "Conservatives" would still root for "their" team, so long as they called themselves the same name and wore the same uniform. They'd be blind that the players wearing those uniforms were actually wolves in sheep's clothing.

Am I hitting home yet?
Duhhhhhh.

calbear93 said:

---

This is mainly a drug problem that is not solved by being compassionate. We need tough love for those who are addicted, and force them into either recovery program or jail. Not sure allowing them to suffer in the street and creating health risk for everyone else is even the compassionate thing to do anyway even if it is the most expedient thing to do for moral superiority. For those who are just falling on hard times, I would be fully supportive of more tax dollars to provide temporary support for job training, job search assistance, and housing. Getting people who want to work some help to be productive is money well spent, even if the money is coming from me.

I am clueless as to how the liberal mayors of SF and LA have been spending all that money they raised. Anyone have any idea?

---

People who are initially displaced from their neighborhood, their community, which they KNOW as home, need somewhere to go. If rents go up and new people who have money move in, there is simply not room for 2 or 10 people to be in the space of 1, unless we are to build like Manhattan, and I don't think society should force itself to have to do that.

That said, displaced people (or people who have no "home community" but who are still "there" nonetheless, need SOME PLACE to call home. I have long envisioned some sort of build out of new communities further out, where it's cheaper, where displaced people can get the assistance they need, and where they can work in new half-way jobs to rebuild their lives.

This is not a remedy to ship them out as much as it is to offer a cheap (more affordable than in the dense/expensive cities) solution.

This would require COMPASSION, NOT TOUGH LOVE, as you have suggested.
Forcing addicted people to quit doesn't work (in case you didn't know). People have to CHOOSE that path.
So, give the homeless a more favorable or palatable path to choose. Something better than living in the streets of Venice Beach.

It's a pipe dream, I know.

As of January 2018, California had an estimated 129,972 experiencing homelessness on any given day, as reported by Continuums of Care to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Of that Total, 6,702 were family households, 10,836 were Veterans, 12,396 were unaccompanied young adults (aged 18-24), and 34,332 were individuals experiencing chronic homelessness.

Why not build out a new city of 150,000 somewhere where land and resources are available.
Set up factories and housing. Give them health care, jobs, etc.
Sounds awful? Well, it would be an opt-in thing. Eventually stores and schools and everything would follow. Call it "Halfway, California".

The first internment camp in operation was Manzanar, located in southern California. Between 1942 and 1945 a total of 10 camps were opened, holding approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans for varying periods of time in California, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Arkansas.

This is another piece of the puzzle

https://sfist.com/2019/08/19/alameda-landlord-claims-she-is-not-greedy-as-she-attempts-to-evict-87-year-old-holocaust-survivor/

concordtom said:

---

As of January 2018, California had an estimated 129,972 experiencing homelessness on any given day, as reported by Continuums of Care to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Of that Total, 6,702 were family households, 10,836 were Veterans, 12,396 were unaccompanied young adults (aged 18-24), and 34,332 were individuals experiencing chronic homelessness.

Why not build out a new city of 150,000 somewhere where land and resources are available.
Set up factories and housing. Give them health care, jobs, etc.
Sounds awful? Well, it would be an opt-in thing. Eventually stores and schools and everything would follow. Call it "Halfway, California".

The first internment camp in operation was Manzanar, located in southern California. Between 1942 and 1945 a total of 10 camps were opened, holding approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans for varying periods of time in California, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Arkansas.

---

FWIW, this is opposite the conventional wisdom of modern housing advocates, who want housing units spread out to mainstream the homeless or sometimes homeless, and to not have government run "slum projects." This is a push back from the large scale great society urban renewal projects which dumped the poor and usually minorities together from everyone else in massive federal government run projects characterized by high rates of inadequate oversight, squalor and in particular, increasing incidence of poverty and crime.

In the 1970's, the federal government got out of the redevelopment business and gave block grants to cities (these grant programs eventually were stopped often in response to misuse by some local governments that used the money for stadiums, corporate offices, and other uses not in the spirt of the grants). Local officials in response to federal retrenchment, experimented with the new public/private strategy, leveraging the economic power of strategically located parcels of publicly owned or purchased (often through imminent domain) land and crafting financial risk-sharing arrangements with private developers to further their redevelopment agendas. The mantra is that the private company would manage and protect its investment thereby avoiding the pitfalls of the large federal slum projects, and not placing all the poor in one place avoided stigmatizing these areas and isolated bad actors from congregating. There also are perceived social and economic benefits from using companies that are owned or controlled locally (and not just the developer, but also those in construction, housing consultants, banks and other financial institutions, advisors like lawyers, and community development corporations) since they employ local people and have a stake in the local community succeeding. And if fact, the housing stock in these projects has been maintained reasonably well, just not enough inventory was built.

There is a balance. The government has to be aggressive enough with incentives to attract desired development projects. But not to aggressive, as deep subsidies to private real estate developers and other private capital interests, actually generates unanticipated costs to the public, produces fewer jobs than promised, and does not always stimulate economic growth locally especially when used for in lieu of business investment for things like office buildings, etc. (this was a criticism of redevelopment agencies before Brown killed them).

Btu one thing is clear, very few housing advocates want the government to run these projects, and especially not like Japanese internment camps.

going4roses said:

---

This is another piece of the puzzle

https://sfist.com/2019/08/19/alameda-landlord-claims-she-is-not-greedy-as-she-attempts-to-evict-87-year-old-holocaust-survivor/

---

This is exactly what I was talking about. The old Section 8 stuff is now becoming decontrolled. MS. Tam wants these tenants out and new tenants paying market rent ASAP. LA is using funds for new housing to instead work with the landlords of the decontrolled properties to keep these people from becoming homeless (I guess in this case the tenant has a daughter to live with, but you get my point). OTOH, if you don't decontrol the units at some point, you don't get the private investment initially. For example, see my post on the Westwood site.

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Wow, you sound like a fiscal conservative.

---

I suppose you haven't read any of my posts about the deficit, how absurd it is for the Republican Party to try and claim they are fiscally conservative, or how stupid it is for any voting Republican to think that they are.

---

Another straw man. Who mentioned the Republican Party other than you? There is nothing about the current Republican party that represent fiscally responsible perspective.

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

I thought progressives in CA were all for spending without a budget as long as it was someone else's money and as long as they don't actually have to make sacrifices

---

The way I see it, California Progressives are not as stupid as California Conservatives. California Progressives understand that there is a cancer in the White Horse, that the Republican Party is self-deluded. California Progressives wish above all else to see and speak the truth, to cut that cancer out so that we may have a California in the future.

Then, once that is accomplished, we can address the sacrifices that WE all need to make. California Progressives would be glad to have the ability to make policy which requires our sacrifice to make the society better.

The way I see it, California Conservatives are not conservative at all. They are selfish losers only interested in their own pocket, their own neighborhood, their own "team" winning.

If California Conservatives had a football team with a 0-16 record, and it was revealed the players were all breaking the rules by using steroids and HGH, and that the management was engaged in a huge spying operation to steal the opponents game plans, or even deflate the footballs.... these so-called "Conservatives" would still root for "their" team, so long as they called themselves the same name and wore the same uniform. They'd be blind that the players wearing those uniforms were actually wolves in sheep's clothing.

Am I hitting home yet?
Duhhhhhh.

---

Umm . . . OK?

It must be nice living in a world where things are black and white and people nicely fit into small boxes of your dogma.

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

This is mainly a drug problem that is not solved by being compassionate. We need tough love for those who are addicted, and force them into either recovery program or jail. Not sure allowing them to suffer in the street and creating health risk for everyone else is even the compassionate thing to do anyway even if it is the most expedient thing to do for moral superiority. For those who are just falling on hard times, I would be fully supportive of more tax dollars to provide temporary support for job training, job search assistance, and housing. Getting people who want to work some help to be productive is money well spent, even if the money is coming from me.

I am clueless as to how the liberal mayors of SF and LA have been spending all that money they raised. Anyone have any idea?

---

This would require COMPASSION, NOT TOUGH LOVE, as you have suggested.
Forcing addicted people to quit doesn't work (in case you didn't know). People have to CHOOSE that path.
So, give the homeless a more favorable or palatable path to choose. Something better than living in the streets of Venice Beach.

It's a pipe dream, I know.

---

Allowing drug addicts to live on the streets in decrepit situations is not compassion. Forcing them to get help is compassion. In their addicted state, they will generally not unilaterally choose a more responsible lifestyle on their own. They are addicts because they are driven by their addiction and not by logic.

I assume if your wife or your child (or anyone else you deeply loved) became addicted and was living in the streets and exposed to fatal disease, you wouldn't think that the compassionate thing would be let them be and wait for them to choose a better lifestyle. You would force them to get help.

Why not extend the same tough love for strangers? Do they not deserve the same consideration? You are not more compassionate or morally superior by allowing them to slowly die on the street while jeopardizing the health of everyone else. It's not even a pipe dream. It's cruel.

For those who are just economically displaced but are not addicted, they need financial help and those are the people that I do help at a personal level instead of waiting for the government to do what I should do as a fellow human being. If you insist on the government being the only solution, in LA and SF, the liberals control every facet of the government. Do something about it. Build affordable housing near economic centers so that they can get back to being productive members. But, honestly, all I see are rich people in otherwise liberal cities who betray themselves to be NIMBYs when their posh lifestyle is even slightly threaten.

All you have to do is look at SF. I hate what has happened to SF. All of the charm of the city, whether Haight Ashbury or Mission, has just become lost through gentrification by rich people who talk about compassion and caring about others while not doing a single thing to actually help other than yap all day long on message boards and acquire more and more assets and property and pricing the middle class out of the city. If you walk through Tenderloin and think that allowing the status quo is the compassionate thing to do, you are cruel.

A whole lot of "we" the norm/rational autonomous person knows what is best for the marginalized bodies w/ no voice/input/say in the matter of what is best/will help

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

As of January 2018, California had an estimated 129,972 experiencing homelessness on any given day, as reported by Continuums of Care to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Of that Total, 6,702 were family households, 10,836 were Veterans, 12,396 were unaccompanied young adults (aged 18-24), and 34,332 were individuals experiencing chronic homelessness.

Why not build out a new city of 150,000 somewhere where land and resources are available.
Set up factories and housing. Give them health care, jobs, etc.
Sounds awful? Well, it would be an opt-in thing. Eventually stores and schools and everything would follow. Call it "Halfway, California".

The first internment camp in operation was Manzanar, located in southern California. Between 1942 and 1945 a total of 10 camps were opened, holding approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans for varying periods of time in California, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Arkansas.

---

FWIW, this is opposite the conventional wisdom of modern housing advocates, who want housing units spread out to mainstream the homeless or sometimes homeless, and to not have government run "slum projects." This is a push back from the large scale great society urban renewal projects which dumped the poor and usually minorities together from everyone else in massive federal government run projects characterized by high rates of inadequate oversight, squalor and in particular, increasing incidence of poverty and crime.

In the 1970's, the federal government got out of the redevelopment business and gave block grants to cities (these grant programs eventually were stopped often in response to misuse by some local governments that used the money for stadiums, corporate offices, and other uses not in the spirt of the grants). Local officials in response to federal retrenchment, experimented with the new public/private strategy, leveraging the economic power of strategically located parcels of publicly owned or purchased (often through imminent domain) land and crafting financial risk-sharing arrangements with private developers to further their redevelopment agendas. The mantra is that the private company would manage and protect its investment thereby avoiding the pitfalls of the large federal slum projects, and not placing all the poor in one place avoided stigmatizing these areas and isolated bad actors from congregating. There also are perceived social and economic benefits from using companies that are owned or controlled locally (and not just the developer, but also those in construction, housing consultants, banks and other financial institutions, advisors like lawyers, and community development corporations) since they employ local people and have a stake in the local community succeeding. And if fact, the housing stock in these projects has been maintained reasonably well, just not enough inventory was built.

There is a balance. The government has to be aggressive enough with incentives to attract desired development projects. But not to aggressive, as deep subsidies to private real estate developers and other private capital interests, actually generates unanticipated costs to the public, produces fewer jobs than promised, and does not always stimulate economic growth locally especially when used for in lieu of business investment for things like office buildings, etc. (this was a criticism of redevelopment agencies before Brown killed them).

Btu one thing is clear, very few housing advocates want the government to run these projects, and especially not like Japanese internment camps.

---

Would Chicago's Cabrini-Green be the type you are referring to?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/magazine/the-towers-came-down-and-with-them-the-promise-of-public-housing.html

Well, I'm a complete neophyte on these issues, and so at least I can take solace in knowing I was merely coming up with a concept that others long ago thought up. I just haven't learned the lessons that their creations taught more recent thinkers in the field.

So, is the common thought now, then, to not aggregate and isolate those who struggle in society, but to mix in everywhere evenly so as to go mostly unnoticed?

Perhaps it is easier for suffering folks to lift themselves out of such a state, to rehabilitate, when the average around you is doing so much better - rather than having everyone around you also struggling. Perhaps the latter just breeds more suffering.

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Wow, you sound like a fiscal conservative.

---

I suppose you haven't read any of my posts about the deficit, how absurd it is for the Republican Party to try and claim they are fiscally conservative, or how stupid it is for any voting Republican to think that they are.

---

Another straw man. Who mentioned the Republican Party other than you? There is nothing about the current Republican party that represent fiscally responsible perspective.

---

Amen to that!

I am frustrated that Republican politicians keep trying to damage their opposition by saying "Socialism" and such, as if we don't already have many socialist programs in this country (schools, roads, fire and police, army, medicare, social security, etc etc etc...).

The current GOP leadership is reckless, more reckless than any Democratic leader I can think of in my lifetime!
When I was growing up in the 70's and 80's, GOP labeled Dems as the "tax and spend" party. Total Bull**** Propaganda. False advertising.

My eyes are open, and I am awakened.
I will no longer be swayed by a dishonest and corrupt group of people. It's been a long slow journey to transition, but now at this point, Trump et al have pushed me over the precipice in a HUGE way! There is no going back.

https://sf.curbed.com/2019/8/19/20812750/ucla-anderson-allen-matkins-commercial-survey-housing-san-francisco-bay-area

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/16/google-takes-full-ownership-of-dozens-of-downtown-san-jose-sites-needed-for-transit-village/

Rhetoric aside,if people can't make money, there won't be new housing unless you believe in large government funded projects (for there is no money and a poor history of operation). It is no different than any other product - it won't be supplied at a loss.

Relevant to my earlier post regarding the absurd costs and delays of entitling new porjects, the article below describes a very prevalent problem in California - abuse of CEQA by NIMBYs and other groups with an agenda. In the bay area where virtually every significant project gets sued or pays greenmail to avoid it.

https://reason.com/2019/08/21/how-california-environmental-law-makes-it-easy-for-labor-unions-to-shake-down-developers/

Construction labor (actual paid wages) are down resulting in lack of laborers inNorthern California according to this source

My next thought when all of the new market rate units (SF-Oakland) come online (next 2-4yrs) will there be enough people to afford them? Or will developments have to lower their expectations? ROI short / long term? Or ???

concordtom said:

---

So, is the common thought now, then, to not aggregate and isolate those who struggle in society, but to mix in everywhere evenly so as to go mostly unnoticed?

Perhaps it is easier for suffering folks to lift themselves out of such a state, to rehabilitate, when the average around you is doing so much better - rather than having everyone around you also struggling. Perhaps the latter just breeds more suffering.

---

Again, if you talk to experts, it is about avoiding being stigmatized, and also, access to areas that have more opportunity. At least that is theory.

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

As of January 2018, California had an estimated 129,972 experiencing homelessness on any given day, as reported by Continuums of Care to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Of that Total, 6,702 were family households, 10,836 were Veterans, 12,396 were unaccompanied young adults (aged 18-24), and 34,332 were individuals experiencing chronic homelessness.

Why not build out a new city of 150,000 somewhere where land and resources are available.
Set up factories and housing. Give them health care, jobs, etc.
Sounds awful? Well, it would be an opt-in thing. Eventually stores and schools and everything would follow. Call it "Halfway, California".

The first internment camp in operation was Manzanar, located in southern California. Between 1942 and 1945 a total of 10 camps were opened, holding approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans for varying periods of time in California, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Arkansas.

---

FWIW, this is opposite the conventional wisdom of modern housing advocates, who want housing units spread out to mainstream the homeless or sometimes homeless, and to not have government run "slum projects." This is a push back from the large scale great society urban renewal projects which dumped the poor and usually minorities together from everyone else in massive federal government run projects characterized by high rates of inadequate oversight, squalor and in particular, increasing incidence of poverty and crime.

In the 1970's, the federal government got out of the redevelopment business and gave block grants to cities (these grant programs eventually were stopped often in response to misuse by some local governments that used the money for stadiums, corporate offices, and other uses not in the spirt of the grants). Local officials in response to federal retrenchment, experimented with the new public/private strategy, leveraging the economic power of strategically located parcels of publicly owned or purchased (often through imminent domain) land and crafting financial risk-sharing arrangements with private developers to further their redevelopment agendas. The mantra is that the private company would manage and protect its investment thereby avoiding the pitfalls of the large federal slum projects, and not placing all the poor in one place avoided stigmatizing these areas and isolated bad actors from congregating. There also are perceived social and economic benefits from using companies that are owned or controlled locally (and not just the developer, but also those in construction, housing consultants, banks and other financial institutions, advisors like lawyers, and community development corporations) since they employ local people and have a stake in the local community succeeding. And if fact, the housing stock in these projects has been maintained reasonably well, just not enough inventory was built.

There is a balance. The government has to be aggressive enough with incentives to attract desired development projects. But not to aggressive, as deep subsidies to private real estate developers and other private capital interests, actually generates unanticipated costs to the public, produces fewer jobs than promised, and does not always stimulate economic growth locally especially when used for in lieu of business investment for things like office buildings, etc. (this was a criticism of redevelopment agencies before Brown killed them).

Btu one thing is clear, very few housing advocates want the government to run these projects, and especially not like Japanese internment camps.

---

Would Chicago's Cabrini-Green be the type you are referring to?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/magazine/the-towers-came-down-and-with-them-the-promise-of-public-housing.html

Well, I'm a complete neophyte on these issues, and so at least I can take solace in knowing I was merely coming up with a concept that others long ago thought up. I just haven't learned the lessons that their creations taught more recent thinkers in the field.

---

I hear you. For those looking for a simple governmental fix, read the article.

going4roses said:

---

My next thought when all of the new market rate units (SF-Oakland) come online (next 2-4yrs) will there be enough people to afford them? Or will developments have to lower their expectations? ROI short / long term? Or ???

---

Bay Area firms pay high wages, so I suspect the units will be filled. All bets off if there is a recession going.

wifeisafurd said:

---

going4roses said:

---

My next thought when all of the new market rate units (SF-Oakland) come online (next 2-4yrs) will there be enough people to afford them? Or will developments have to lower their expectations? ROI short / long term? Or ???

---

Bay Area firms pay high wages, so I suspect the units will be filled. All bets off if there is a recession going.

---

I concur fully , just got off the phone w/ a childhood friend who just sold a condo for a client in Oakland and he said the sellers could have gotten more. Buyer is moving from SF over the Bay. I need to find out how many new DU's are are projected come online in the next 2-4 yrs. Perhaps I can weave this research into my thesis paper. That is a lot people coming/ moving/and living in Oakland. I don't know if the infrastructure/city governance is ready

https://newrepublic.com/amp/article/154618/new-american-homeless-housing-insecurity-richest-cities?__twitter_impression=true

Working 203 hours a week to afford housing? Damn

Wife,
Smercomish did a segmyon this issue.
Not very good, though.
And the Kesler guy from CMK sounds like a ***** with no solutions. Institutionalize people and lock up drug users?