AuthorTopic: Homeless: There But for Fortune...  (Read 23951 times)

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
    • View Profile
It's all the rage with So. Cal. folks, millennial brats, seniors etc. in La La Land....

It may be the "rage", but it's not by choice.  It's by necessity.  They can't afford the rents.

RE

Back in the day "they" were called squatters ! They hung out at this place called a library... Remember.

People took 6 mos. or a year "surf trips" up & down both coasts. They made a movie ! It was called Endless Summer. Ol' skool homelessness Amigo  :icon_mrgreen:

By Choice  :icon_sunny:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/-3hIYkalIS4&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/-3hIYkalIS4&fs=1</a>

There is a problem, your right ! & that problem was created by folks at Uncle Cracker Inc. Why ? Because they said so. THERE NUTS  :coffee:

Global "Warming" was a crisis from the official narrative. Now it's climate change. DUH ! Gotta' luv change  :icon_sunny:
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41414
    • View Profile
It's all the rage with So. Cal. folks, millennial brats, seniors etc. in La La Land....

It may be the "rage", but it's not by choice.  It's by necessity.  They can't afford the rents.

RE

Back in the day "they" were called squatters ! They hung out at this place called a library... Remember.

People took 6 mos. or a year "surf trips" up & down both coasts. They made a movie ! It was called Endless Summer. Ol' skool homelessness Amigo  :icon_mrgreen:

By Choice  :icon_sunny:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/-3hIYkalIS4&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/-3hIYkalIS4&fs=1</a>

There is a problem, your right ! & that problem was created by folks at Uncle Cracker Inc. Why ? Because they said so. THERE NUTS  :coffee:

Global "Warming" was a crisis from the official narrative. Now it's climate change. DUH ! Gotta' luv change  :icon_sunny:

I am quite familiar with the Beach Bum culture of LA from the 1950s to the 1980s or so.

What was then is not what is now.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/fqukDX5O03w" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/fqukDX5O03w</a>

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41414
    • View Profile
🏕️ Paradise Lost: Homeless in Los Angeles
« Reply #77 on: August 21, 2019, 04:21:11 PM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/9D9pZEjSxXQ" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/9D9pZEjSxXQ</a>
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41414
    • View Profile
🏕️ Seattle is Dying
« Reply #78 on: August 22, 2019, 03:55:22 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/bpAi70WWBlw" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/bpAi70WWBlw</a>
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41414
    • View Profile
https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2019/09/10/trumps-reported-california-homeless-takeover-bewilders-state-local-leaders-1181298


Trump has taken aim at California’s homelessness issues before, earlier this year telling Fox’s Tucker Carlson that the federal government might be compelled to “intercede.” | Getty Images

Trump's reported California homeless takeover bewilders state, local leaders

By JEREMY B. WHITE and CARLA MARINUCCI

09/10/2019 06:09 PM EDT

Updated 09/10/2019 07:45 PM EDT
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

OAKLAND — California officials scrambled Tuesday to decipher a report that the Trump administration is planning to intercede in the state’s homelessness crisis.

No issue is dominating the agenda in California like the housing shortage and homelessness spike, with mayors, state lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom grappling to ameliorate an epidemic that is unavoidable on city streets.

But a Washington Post report that the Trump administration is considering demolishing homeless encampments and moving unhoused people into government facilities caught elected officials here off guard. Mayors were left trying to determine if they were dealing with a speculative threat or the possibility of concrete, drastic action.

Newsom has sparred with President Donald Trump before over homelessness, and a spokesperson assailed the president's record in a statement that California "stands ready to talk" if Trump is willing to discuss "real investment" in housing. Newsom's first budget, passed earlier this year, committed billions of dollars to housing and homelessness.

"[Trump] could start by ending his plans to cut food stamps, gut health care for low-income people, and scare immigrant families from accessing government services," spokesperson Nathan Click said.

In a head-snapping turn of events that illustrated the challenges California faces in working with a hostile and mercurial president, news of possible federal action dropped — bewildering officials — as Los Angeles officials were giving a tour to a Trump administration contingent focused on homelessness.

A day earlier, the chief of state and federal affairs for Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti revealed the Trump delegation’s visit, saying it was an opportunity for the city to explain “our strategic plan around homelessness and sanitation deployment and Skid Row engagement.”

“They’re just not thoughtful, and quite frankly not smart enough, to know what we’re doing,” Garcetti aide Breelyn Pete said at a POLITICO event.

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, who is co-chairing a Newsom task force on homelessness and has grappled with a growing homeless population in his city, said in a statement, "I am wary of any such offer from an administration that consistently demonizes vulnerable people. And yet, if the federal government wants to offer resources to help bring people indoors and to offer federal facilities to shelter and house people, we should readily listen. We cannot afford to politicize an issue which needs real thought and real commitment.”

Other mayors contending with spiking homeless populations said the reported administration effort was the wrong approach. San Francisco Mayor London Breed in a statement urged “federal support and resources to build more housing for people living on our streets” rather than “simply cracking down on homelessness without providing the housing that people need.”

Similarly, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf — who infuriated the Trump administration and drew threats of retaliation after warning her residents of an impending immigration raid — accused Trump of “pre-election political posturing at the expense of our most vulnerable residents.”

“We’ve been asking for federal assistance to address homelessness for years, and certainly I would welcome a change in heart from the president on this issue,” Schaaf said in an interview with POLITICO. “It will take housing and help — not crackdowns.”

San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, a moderate Republican, was more conciliatory, saying he would gladly accept “additional federal resources to help us move more individuals off the streets and into housing.”

Trump has taken aim at California’s homelessness issues before, earlier this year telling Fox’s Tucker Carlson that the federal government might be compelled to “intercede.”

That brought a tongue-in-cheek rebuke from Newsom, who said he welcomed federal help but was unsure the president “knows what it means” to float a potential intervention.

“If interceding means cutting budgets to support services to get people off the street, he’s been very successful in advancing those provisions in addition to the massive Social Security cuts and Medicare cuts — two things he promised he wouldn’t do,” Newsom said in July.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41414
    • View Profile
🏕️ The Solution to Homelessness Is Staring Us in the Face
« Reply #80 on: September 14, 2019, 07:09:47 AM »
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-solution-to-homelessness-is-staring-us-in-the-face/

Sep 13, 2019
|
Scheer Intelligence
The Solution to Homelessness Is Staring Us in the Face


shando. / Flickr


It’s no secret that homelessness in the United States, especially in California, has reached critical levels. That the wealthiest state in the wealthiest nation in the world is dealing with a crisis that stems so clearly from inequality and neglect should have its predominantly left-leaning residents up in arms. And to some extent, they are.

Becky Dennison, executive director of Venice Community Housing in Los Angeles, who speaks with Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer in the latest installment of “Scheer Intelligence,” has dedicated her life’s work to helping address homelessness, refusing to give up fighting for the well-being of her less fortunate neighbors against all odds.

“It’s urgent work; it’s necessary work,” Dennison, a former mechanical engineer, tells Scheer. “It is, I think, one of the social justice and civil rights issues of our time. And so I want to be a part of that solution.”
Related Articles
Could This Be the Humane Housing Policy We’ve Been Waiting For?
Could This Be the Humane Housing Policy We’ve Been Waiting For?
by Clara Romeo
Thousands of Children Will Be Made Homeless Under Trump's New Plan
Thousands of Children Will Be Made Homeless Under Trump's New Plan
by Rose Ramirez and Dedrick Asante-Muhammad / OtherWords

Venice Community Housing houses 500 people and plays a crucial part in helping put roofs over the heads of those who most need it. Dennison’s motivation is her belief that housing is a human right and is, without a doubt, the solution to homelessness. Not everyone in her community feels the same way, though some do, but with a big caveat: They want affordable housing projects to be placed far from their own homes. This phenomenon has become known as Nimbyism—NIMBY being an acronym for “not in my backyard.” Dennison has a different term for it: housing segregation.

As Dennison and Scheer conclude during their discussion, the issue of homelessness is intersectional, stemming from both class and racial divides.

“One thing we’ve never really considered in America in a serious way since the Great Depression are class divisions,” Scheer says. “And we always assumed—even in the Great Depression—we assumed it was temporary. People had fallen upon hard times, and so forth. But we are increasingly in a class-divided America.”

“This is a class issue,” Dennison agrees, adding, “it is also an issue of institutional racism. The overrepresentation of African Americans in the homeless community in Los Angeles is beyond compare.”

Listen to the full discussion between Dennison and Scheer as they grapple with one of the most pressing crises the U.S. faces today, tracing its roots as well as identifying hope for a better future. You can also read a transcript of the interview below the media player and find past episodes of “Scheer Intelligence” here.

—Introduction by Natasha Hakimi Zapata

Robert Scheer: Hi, this is Robert Scheer with another edition of “Scheer Intelligence,” where I hasten to say the intelligence comes from my guests. In this case it’s Becky Dennison. And my hat’s off to you, because you do this work that a lot of people walk around, pass the homeless in many neighborhoods in L.A., but other cities; they say, somebody should do something about this, you know. And if they have a religious background, they’ve read Luke and know that the parable of the Good Samaritan–we’re supposed to stop, see who’s living in this tent or on the floor, are they alive, dead, minister to their needs, and we’ll get into heaven, hopefully. But we don’t [anything] about it, we put it out of sight, out of mind and all that. And you are, you were a mechanical engineer, which clearly it was a path to a good, solid career, OK.

Becky Dennison: Yes.

RS: And what you’ve been doing since you left, I guess, the University of Minnesota–

BD: Yep.

RS: Is, ah, not a solid career. You decided back in 1992–you’d come to Los Angeles, I gather–you were going to do something about this refuge–ah, refuse of people, indistinguishable from garbage bins and everything else, on the streets. Now we have many more people on the streets; the statistics are compelling. And you’ve spent a lot of time, and up until about three years ago you were actually working in the inner city, downtown and all that. And now you work with the Venice Community Housing program, which houses, I don’t know, 190, 200 people or something–

BD: About 500 people. About 200 units, yeah.

RS: Five hundred people. Oh, and 190 units. But you’re out there now in a community, Venice, which is close to the ocean; it’s undergoing gentrification. And it’s going to go the way of Beverly Hills, or certainly Santa Monica. And you’re there telling people, no, we don’t want to just warehouse, or–not even warehouse, there aren’t warehouses for them–put them in the streets of downtown L.A. No, they should be here and elsewhere in decent housing. So what brought you to this point? And how come you’re not more depressed? You seem quite cheerful.

BD: [Laughs] Well, it’s not depressing work. It’s urgent work; it’s necessary work. It’s, I think, one of the social justice and civil rights issues of our time. And so I want to be a part of that solution. I came to the work doing some volunteer work in Skid Row, and meeting some of the residents there, and decided to leave my engineering job to do this work solely because of the energy and the resilience of the folks living in the community. People who have experienced homelessness, people who are extremely low-income, and really their fight for their lives and their communities. And I just feel like Los Angeles is a city that can and must do so much better in terms of equity and in terms of housing for all.

And so yeah, it doesn’t–it doesn’t, ah–it’s frustrating, and it’s angering, the lack of action and lack of urgency in this country for the issue for a very long time, and particularly in this city. But we have been able to take steps forward, and that’s what keeps us moving. And again, we can’t leave folks in our streets and sidewalks in these conditions. We can’t leave folks outside to die. And Venice Community Housing has been doing that for 30 years, and it was a perfect match for me to join that organization, because affordable housing is the solution to homelessness. And there are other issues that folks face, but fundamentally, people need a place to live; people deserve a place to live. And Venice has long been a diverse community that has been welcoming and inclusive, and we are going to fight to keep it that way.

RS: OK. Now, for people who are not from Los Angeles, they should understand first of all, even though we are the capital of the world, our official propaganda–we obviously are a very attractive city to people all over the world; we’re a center of culture, control exports to the rest of the world, a way of dignifying or celebrating the American way of life. But Los Angeles, I think, has the most pronounced problem of homelessness in the country.

BD: We do.

RS: And you can’t ignore it. We’re doing this program from the University of Southern California, which is 37 blocks from City Hall. And we have homeless people all around here; you go over to the Shrine, where they used to do the Academy Awards; you go anywhere a half block off campus, and there are people, humps of humanity in hallways, in the street, sleeping there and so forth. And unfortunately, it’s good for our school to be here so at least there’s a visibility, but it also leads to a certain cynicism. Who are these people that are homeless and in these conditions?

There are two myths about it. And when I interviewed the head of the United Way, which does very good work here, he dispelled two myths. One is they come from elsewhere; we have this good climate and therefore they leave Pennsylvania or New York and come here. He said that’s not really true; 70 percent of our homeless people were housed previously. They’ve fallen upon hard times; housing is expensive, and they don’t make enough money to be able to get housing. The other has to do with mental illness, and California was the scene of a great experiment, which unfortunately a number of civil libertarians, the ACLU joined with right-wingers like Ronald Reagan.

And there was an idea that people could somehow take their meds on the fly; there was the Lanterman-Petris Act. And that we didn’t want mental institutions and so forth. So another myth is somehow now we have these mentally ill people and they end up on the streets. And I’ve seen comments that you’ve made that you would agree with the United Way’s position, that this is a myth, it’s a way of alienating us from these people–OK, they’re mentally ill, or they’re from somewhere else–no. They are, in fact, us.

BD: Yeah. That’s exactly right. And it’s not to say that there aren’t always a handful of folks who have come from other places, and especially young folks who come for the sort of L.A. dream. But most people are from our communities right here in Los Angeles. And there is a mental health crisis in the nation, and within the homeless community. But it is not the entirety of the homeless community. And it really is that it’s a way of othering and creating a fear of people. And there’s no reason to be afraid of people with mental illness, either.

Actually, they’re much more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators of crime. But it is a way of saying–I think to some extent it’s a human condition to say “That could never happen to me.” And it’s a way of also placing blame on individuals, when really the issue is a structural issue, and this drastic lack of investment in affordable housing–which is also Ronald Reagan’s claim to fame, when he was president and cut the HUD budget by 80 percent, and it’s never been restored since then.

RS: You know, it’s interesting. I interviewed Ronald Reagan before he was governor and before he was president. And I got to know the guy. And he himself would have been homeless as a child were it not for the New Deal programs. And his father actually had a job with the New Deal. And I reminisced with him about that, how much the government did for people who needed homes and housing and jobs and so forth. And I remember my own father would take me down to the Bowery in New York, and show me the people there lining up for food and stuff.

And he himself knew he was one paycheck–if he got laid off–which he did; he actually got fired the day I was born, and it took years to get a job back. But it was always, he always would tell me: These people are us. And you should worry about them, and you should also work hard so you don’t end up that way. But the system is rigged. We have a depression, we have lost jobs, and so forth. We have lost that, in some sense.

And I want to bring you to where you are now in Venice, Calif.. And this is a hip, deep blue, progressive community, Venice. As is Santa Monica. And these communities have experienced gentrification, and they’ve actually developed quite a bit of hostility towards less fortunate people in their midst. And you’re up against it, because you’re trying now to develop affordable housing in Venice. And this is a story throughout the country, OK? And then there’s resentment: “Why are you feeding them, and why are you going there?” But then– “Bring them here, housing? Why are you doing that?” So tell me about the battle in Venice. Because I suspect a number of people listening to this might be torn in the same way. They want to do something for the homeless, but they don’t want to do it in their neighborhood–the NIMBYism.

BD: Yep, yep. So I do want to say that–well, so we are building in Venice for the first time to build up 100 percent affordable housing developments, and supportive housing developments, for the first time in 20 years in Venice. So there’s been a long dearth of development there. And we are facing some really significant battles. But I do want to say that the large majority of people that we talk to in Venice, and throughout the city, actually support what we do, and support what we do in their neighborhood. And they’ve kind of, there’s polling that shows that there’s this silent majority that wants these solutions in their neighborhood–

RS: Oh, I can back that up, because you’ve had Proposition HH, is it? And H?

BD: Yep, and HHH.

RS: And on the county level–and just to defend L.A. County and L.A. City [Laughter]–no, the fact is the voters here did vote for some billions of dollars for affordable housing. However, the contradiction is, the idea is to put some of these services and housing in every councilman’s district; that’s where they have found the resistance.

BD: No, for sure. And we have faced really incredible and, in some cases, very ugly and hateful resistance to what we’re doing in Venice. And you know, people have said, you know, “We don’t want these people here,” and so using kind of the same thing we were talking about, that somehow these folks are not from our communities, that don’t deserve our care and love. That everybody should live east of Lincoln, which is kind of one of the borders of the coastal zone. And actually in a community meeting I said, you know, we don’t support everyone living east of the 405 or east of Lincoln, because that’s a housing segregation argument, and we’re not about housing segregation.

And a woman said, “Well, I am.” So there are–there are a minority of voices that are adamantly opposed to anything happening in their neighborhood. And we just believe that it’s our goal to mobilize all the folks that are supportive, because really, it’s not that much different than any other housing segregation movement we’ve seen over time. In terms of who deserves to live where, and how do you zone property, and who has the voice–wealthy homeowners have the loudest and strongest voice. And we’re dead set on overcoming that.

RS: So this woman that said we want to have this segregation–did you talk to her?

BD: I have talked to her quite a bit, yes.

RS: And what is her defense?

BD: I mean, I don’t think there is a defense for that argument. But sometimes she and others have said, you know, “I’ve worked really hard to get this property by the beach, and so everyone else should have to work hard.” I remind them that Venice and all, you know, tourist towns have a lot of hard workers making $15 an hour who are never going to afford to live in Los Angeles, and they deserve housing too; they’re working hard. And folks who are experiencing homelessness sometimes are also working hard, or have certainly worked throughout their lives. And that, you know, at some point we cannot–these are the same folks who complain about homeless folks being on their sidewalks.

And no one is going to disappear from space. And so no matter your feelings about homeless folks, whether you’re coming from a space of compassion and care or not, housing is the solution, and people have to embrace that solution. It will make the entirety of the community better and healthier.

RS: Well, if you don’t, it’s going to destroy your community. I saw a quote from you in which you said housing is a human right.

BD: Yes.

RS: And I think there’s a very–look, you know, you can’t get any [Laughs]–I don’t know why I’m giggling, we’re talking about tragedy here. But the fact of the matter is, you can’t get any basic, more basic, than having a shelter and food. You know, come on, safety; every society has at least paid lip service to this. And it’s a very interesting notion of privilege. As somebody who lives downtown, I resent that person in Venice, because they’re all for feeding the homeless downtown–they might even contribute money to it–where I live.

And they’re all for, you know, shelters there and services there, and so forth. But not–you know, this is the NIMBYism that we’ve talked about. And it’s interesting, because first of all, this idea that–who gets to live by the water, or the beach–the California Constitution guarantees all of us access to the ocean.

BD: That’s right.

RS: It’s one of the enlightened things about it. And so this whole idea of privileged communities, and that you get to pick it–and so money talks.

BD: Yep.

RS: Now, that would be fine if you find some stuffy, old-fashioned republican, right? Or so forth. But we’re talking about Venice! For people who don’t know who are listening to this, who maybe live in, you know, I don’t know where, some other place, you know–Venice was the hip community. Venice was where the Beatniks were. Venice is where, you know, people hang out and dress all kinds of different ways and listen to all kinds of music. So actually, they want diversity and excitement without poor people.

BD: Yeah, that’s right. And what’s really frustrating is most people will tell you that they moved to Venice, as opposed to another beach community, because of the diversity, because of the artists, because of the funky nature. But when it’s taking steps to actually restore some of that diversity that’s been lost in the pushout in Venice, then people are opposed. And it’s just, it’s not logical, it’s not fair; it’s just not acceptable.

RS: But also what’s key to it is who are our fellow humans. Because this objectification is to say, oh, they’re crazy. Or they’re dangerous, or they’re worthless, or they didn’t want to work, or what have you. And this is a way of dismissing humanity, right? I mean, yet if you know anyone–because you do; many of us have had cousins, or nephews, or our own children, or you know, somebody end up in that situation–then suddenly oh, no, they’re real people, that’s my cousin Louie, you know. No, and he just fell upon hard times, and I would like to help him, but it’s not easy, and so forth. And it’s interesting, because this whole notion of privilege has become acceptable. And I really, here at–and I’m not going to put down the University of Southern California, where we’re doing this; I’m not, because I think as a school we probably do as much as any other institution to reach out in the neighborhood, to work with people.

We have a homeless project here, I think our students work in the local schools, they work in the neighborhood. So I think we’re just as good as, you know, Stanford–which, of course, is in a privileged area to begin with–or UCLA, which is in a much more privileged part of town. I’m not going to trash USC, but something I’ve noticed happens is “us-them.” And we have a daily crime report, whoever’s committing a crime. And there’s a sense of danger about the larger community. As you point out, if you walk–you know, because I go home from here through Skid Row quite often. And you know, you stop there, you fear for them! Not for yourself. I mean, who’s protecting? You see women, you see children.

And if you have any kind of decency, you’re not going to worry about yourself primarily; you’ll say wait a minute, this is a hell of a circumstance, you know? And you know where that came home to me, was during the Occupy Movement. And I know I can ramble a little in these interviews, but it kind of clicks. And I remember that the night that they destroyed Occupy in L.A., I went down there and everything; it was terrible–

BD: Yeah, I was there.

RS: They put up barriers, and I don’t know if you were there that night–

BD: Yeah.

RS: –but it was just awful. And the big argument that I heard–so I stayed all night, and then in the morning people came to work at City Hall in the state building, federal building. And they were saying–“Oh, it’s about time, and they should have cleaned it up, it was a mess, and there was dirt, and you know, people were defecating, and there was crime,” and so forth. And I had spent that night sort of wandering up and down that mile or more, two miles of intense poverty called Skid Row. That they never noticed. It was the visibility. And that’s really what bothers people in Venice or Santa Monica or Beverly–well, Beverly Hills they don’t allow it, they just arrest everybody. But it’s the visibility. That’s what’s irritating, right?

BD: Yeah. No, it’s beyond irritating. That’s what’s angering, is that people–the solution is just not here, get people out of my eyesight. And that is about people feeling comfortable and privileged to not have to see what this system has done to people experiencing extreme poverty. It’s a comfort level and a privilege that people are demanding, that we can’t accept, because we live in this city and we collectively are responsible to solve these issues. And it is–you know, even for folks who have maybe a friend or a family member, or who have befriended somebody, or you know, certainly more and more people are facing eviction and being pushed into homelessness for the first time.

But it doesn’t always change the mindset of “I care about that, and I want to do something, but I don’t want to have to be experiencing it every day, and I certainly don’t want to solve it here in my neighborhood.” And those, again, it’s a minority of voices, but they win a lot. And we just can’t accept that, and that’s why we see the continual policing of homelessness, and sort of pushing. And even in Skid Row, which is an amazing community in many, many ways, but it also was built on a policy of containment. So that the new downtown–

RS: Oh, and dumping people, and letting them out from hospitals and so forth. Let me ask you a question. How do we bottle you?

BD: [Laughs]

RS: No, really. I mean, you seem so sensible. And you know, you had a lot of–you have other possibilities in life. You could wake up in the morning and say, hey, I’ve paid my dues, I’m not going to do this anymore. There’s an excellent movie–I thought excellent, anyway–The Advocates. I don’t know if you’ve seen that.

BD: Yes.

RS: Yeah, and about working with the homeless, and these people actually look into the tent, who’s there, are they alive, or–you know, and then you can’t ignore, this is a human being. You know, and different gender and age, and come in all shapes and sizes. And you can’t just ignore ‘em. So this ability to ignore the other, the reason I find it so depressing is this is going to be more and more the norm in this society. Because one thing we’ve never really considered in America in a serious way since the Great Depression are class divisions.

BD: Yeah.

RS: And we always assumed, even in the Great Depression, we assumed it was temporary. People had fallen upon hard times, and so forth. But we are increasingly in a class-divided America. Sharp division. We know since 1992, when Bill Clinton–the years we’re supposed to love the democrats, OK, I’m not going to cause more hostility out there. But the fact of the matter is, somewhere at the end, you know, it wasn’t just Reagan, but–

BD: Oh, absolutely.

RS: Actually, you can trace it from Bill Clinton on, we’ve had this sharp division. More and more people, even if they work very hard–I shouldn’t say “even,” when they work very hard–can’t afford housing in many places, most places. And you know, so poverty is not a mental health problem. It may cause mental health problems, because it’s a hell of a thing to sleep on the street. But the fact of the matter is, this is a reality of modern capitalism.

BD: Yes.

RS: And so I want to ask you, why are you hopeful about being–why–OK, why have you made this choice? And you’ve been doing this now for what, ‘92, ‘02–you’ve been doing this, what, for eighteen–

BD: Twenty-five years.

RS: Twenty-five years. And how do you keep going, and why do you keep going?

BD: Well, so I do think there is hope to upset the capitalist system. It’s certainly been done in other places, and it’s been done in pieces here. And so it’s certainly not going to happen if we don’t fight for it. And until that happens, I just feel strongly that we can and must do better for those folks who have been pushed out. And this is a class issue; it is also an issue of institutional racism. The overrepresentation of African Americans in the homeless community in Los Angeles is beyond compare. So those two–

RS: Do you have statistics on that?

BD: I don’t know them off the top of my head, but I think it’s an overrepresentation of something like 20 or 30 times. Yeah.

RS: Yeah, because we don’t have a very large black population in California anymore, because we had the forcing out of the very jobs that black people had come to do–

BD: But at one point, a few years ago, one out of about 250 white and Latino residents were homeless, and one out of 18 African Americans were homeless.

RS: Yeah, that’s a startling statistic–and you can eyeball it very clearly without doing the survey. And it’s an increasing population. I think in Venice you’ve even had an increase of, or in the west side of L.A., 19 percent?

BD: Yep.

RS: In, what, the last year or something?

BD: Yeah, 12 percent I think. But overall, larger than that, yeah. But I mean, that’s why you have to sort of balance hope and anger and indignation, right? Because we are making progress here and there. And every single person we house matters, right? And so with the passage of the ballot initiatives, we have to make sure we maximize the impact of those things. And then we have to fight for more and more and more.

RS: OK, but–but let’s cut to the chase here. This is not an individual problem.

BD: No.

RS: This is not a case of people fell off the wagon here because they started drinking or they got drugs or they lost their mind for one reason or another.

BD: No, this is a structural problem. This is the, this is the–

RS: Because that’s the cop-out that’s always offered. And that was the mistake, you know, of the Reagan-ACLU alliance; they said, oh, we’ll give people drugs, there’s a pill and that’ll solve it. No, you have to have decent jobs, you have to have decent conditions. And even, the very idea of housing–it’s funny, I saw an interview with you where somebody in the audience, or somebody brought up the Chicago housing project–

BD: Oh, yeah. They like to say we’re building Cabrini-Green in Venice. Yeah.

RS: And it’s interesting, because I grew up in an area in New York where housing projects came in, and they actually were a good thing. You know, because they–you know, and a number of them survived quite well over the years, you know. And the fact of the matter is, they weren’t perfect, but you weren’t out in the street, you know, in the rain and the snow and all that. And people could go to school, kids could go to school; they could be raised, and so forth. And what happened was, you had a concerted effort to attack every single program that would benefit these folks.

BD: That’s right. I mean, public housing is the reason why the homelessness in the Depression era was temporary. Because there was a massive investment in housing, which obviously makes sense. So we–

RS: Yeah. Including the GI Bill, which everybody forgets.

BD: Yeah. And there were some, obviously, some racist issues with those housing programs. But–

RS: And by the way, to mention the Chicago project, there was also deliberate underfunding and abandonment of those projects.

BD: Well, that’s exactly what happened, right. So it was a solution that absolutely worked, and people call it a failure; it’s absolutely not a failed model. It failed its residents because of the disinvestment. They just pulled all the money out of that, and you couldn’t operate the housing in the way that you should. It was intentional, to create slum housing, to then say, oh, this program failed, let’s get rid of this housing–and, by the way, all the people in it, en masse across the country. And that was largely under Bill Clinton. Certainly started before.

RS: OK, well, so long as we’ve brought old Bill back into this [Laughter]. Let me get back to the cutting edge of this politics. Because one of the convenient things would be to blame it all on–in a community like this here, in L.A.–on Trump. And blame it on mean-spirited republicans. And they certainly have done their share of damage; I’m not trying to get them off the hook here. But the fact of the matter is, it was Bill Clinton who ended the federal poverty program, so-called welfare reform.

And he had this idea, people should learn to fend for themselves, and blah blah blah. But he didn’t worry about what kind of jobs they would have, and so forth. And you have a lot of undocumented labor, and that, you know–OK, great, we don’t want to deport people, but on the other hand we won’t guarantee they have decent working conditions, they’re paid real wages and so forth. And you’re really, in Venice, up against liberal hypocrisy.

BD: Yes.

RS: So why–let’s not beat around the bush here. These people are, what, frauds. Frauds. I mean, come on. You know, you talk a good game about human rights and everything else, and you step around someone–I do it myself, by the way. Let me admit to being a hypocrite, OK. I mean, I do step around people when I’m going here, and I’m in a hurry to get something in the store, and I want to go–and besides, I don’t want to get involved every minute, I have to force myself, I have to reread Luke and the Good Samaritan. I teach that here in the ethics class. It’s a compelling injunction, you know; because remember, in the Good Samaritan, the lawyer says to Jesus, you know, how do I get to heaven? And Jesus tells this story of two, the rabbi and the other one from the tribe, they pass by this person who’s been beaten.

And then the Good Samaritan, who’s from another tribe–the other–comes and, you know, he takes this person, puts him on a donkey, takes him to an inn, and says I will come back and see how he’s doing. Well, that’s taking care of the homeless. That’s taking care of that person in the street. Well, I have–I don’t know anybody in my circle of friends, or people I associate, that will really–except under very exceptional circumstance–stop to do what the people did in that move, The Advocates. Figure out who’s there on the street; are they even alive or dead. I go by people here around USC all the time–I don’t know whether they’re alive or dead. And I don’t stop and engage them. And so this is a problem not just of human rights, but of what is humanity?

BD: Yeah.

RS: Right, in a major city, that we accept.

BD: Well, I think that’s the issue, right? It’s become commonplace. People say all the time that it’s an intractable, insolvable problem; that’s not true. And so it becomes easy for folks–all of us, myself sometimes–to accept that that’s the way Los Angeles is, and move forward with your day. And again, though, when the solutions come forward, then you would expect at least people to embrace the work that other people are willing to do to solve the problem. And I think that’s an issue we have to get past.

RS: I’m not just–

BD: Though I do have to say, again–large majority of people are supportive. And if we had those folks organized and speaking out, it would help the issue as well.

RS: Right. And I–this is not false optimism. I mean, I was blown away that a majority of voters in L.A.–city of L.A., but also the county; that includes Beverly Hills and other places–did vote for substantial funding for homeless people. However, they don’t want it in their community.

BD: Many. You’re right.

RS: And that is, you know, the real disconnect here. It’s–because forget about just its–the immorality of being indifferent to the suffering of others. It means that you yourself have become so tribal, so personal, that the people you care about are only the people that are in your family, your social circle, your clan, or what have you. Then you will reach out. You know, and it’s interesting, I have these statistics from the Federal Reserve that a very large number of people in this country live paycheck to paycheck. OK, well, if that paycheck dries up, and you don’t have family, and you don’t have savings–which most of these people don’t; that’s what it means to live from paycheck to paycheck–what are you going to be other than homeless?

BD: Right. That’s why we see the homeless community growing in Los Angeles. Because more people are falling into homelessness for those reasons, every day, than we can possibly move into housing. And those are the structural gaps and the class issue that you’re talking about, that has never been addressed in the last 50 or 60 years by a politician of any background.

RS: Well. So what’s going to happen now? I mean, our mayor–right, Garcetti, who was going to run for president, but this reality sort of haunted him–right?

BD: Yeah.

RS: You know, people were–wait a minute, clean up your own town. Ah, what–really, I mean, what’s going to keep you going? Are you going to burn out?

BD: No, I’m not going to burn out.

RS: So what are the successes? Tell me a good say.

BD: So, I mean, a great day is–you know, today, for example, there’s an organized group of folks who are trying to protect the rights of folks living on our streets, because there’s nowhere else for people to go. And we’ve gotten to a place where the City of L.A. may need to rescind their law that makes it illegal to sit or sleep on the sidewalk, even though they’re short tens of thousands of shelter and housing beds. That’s a long fight that people have been in. A good day is when, you know–and it isn’t about one person, but it is a great day when one person moves off the streets into a house that we have, that we operate in Venice. Because that is life-changing and community-changing. It’s a great day when we had our Rose Apartments approved for–we’re going to break ground in January on 35 new homes in Venice, again for the first time in 20 years.

RS: Is that on the lot that’s contested?

BD: No. And then another great day is when we hear from folks like last night at a community meeting, entirely 100 percent consensus in support for us building on the city-owned parking lot in Venice that in the news media you just only hear sort of the hate. And the hate is very strong. But a lot of folks sitting in rooms saying, how do we win, how do we get this done? Because if we lose here, we lose ongoing. And so those are the things. People are down for the fight, and we’ve got a long ways to go, and some things we can do person-by-person, but we’re always looking at the structural issues.

RS: You know, I just have a political angle here, a gimmick. It’s interesting, because we say Donald Trump is defined by the crowd at the county fair or something–wherever he is–that is cheering his more hateful message, you know, the us and the them, and basically informed by racism, which the homeless issue is, and the other, and so forth. Why don’t we have a test for democratic candidates to come to your area–forget about downtown Skid Row, that would be a good place–but come to Venice. To their political base of liberal–why don’t you invite them? I’ll give you an idea. Seriously, a candidates’ forum. So Kamala Harris can be there, and Bernie Sanders can be there, right? You know, and all of them can be there: do you support housing here on this vacant city lot for homeless people?

BD: I love it.

RS: That would be–that would be a great test. Elizabeth Warren, who I have great respect for–OK. But right here. Will you tell the local folks here why this is good for their community? And then do the same thing next to the Salesforce building in San Francisco. If you go to downtown San Francisco, the highest building there now, Salesforce building–surrounded by homeless people at night. You have to pick over them to walk from your restaurant or bar, you know, trendy bar, to get to your car or something. That’s where the candidates should go.

Because I think–would be nice if it was also a good test for the republican base, but it would be a very good test for the democratic base. You claim you care about the other; what about this issue of gentrification? Because one could argue–and I’m putting myself in the group; before we were talking about this subject, I was chatting with you.

I’ve lived off and on in downtown L.A. since 1976, when I came to work for the L.A. Times. And I did that because I’m from New York, you know, and I thought hey, I’ll live where I work. But I couldn’t buy a bottle of milk. And there was no amenities, and then we had a child, and we had to go four miles to get groceries and so forth, or go to a liquor store. So at first I thought gentrification was a pretty good thing; at least it makes poverty visible, at least we’ll demand more services, more policing, cleaner streets and so forth. But then you realize gentrification is ethnic cleansing.

BD: Yes.

RS: And it’s evil. You know, and it’s gated communities, it’s privilege, it’s zones of protection from the other. And it’s a way of becoming cynical. So I want to end on this final point. The reason I wanted to bottle your attitude or energy–how do we defeat cynicism? What prevents you–well, this is the–here, I’m teaching at this school and everything. How do we–you know, and I’m still doing this, and I’m pretty old. So I clearly have found some ways of getting my passion going. But seriously, you know, you’re getting older too, right?

BD: Yes. [Laughs] Yes, I am.

RS: Not quite as old as I am, but you have, you know, maybe I guess you’re half my age or something, I don’t know. [Laughter] But anyway, seriously, what is your message? Say a young person wants to come and volunteer with your group, right. You have openings, right? Are they unpaid or paid internships?

BD: Both.

RS: Yeah, I’m against unpaid internships. [Laughter] But paid is good. So what’s your message, though? And how do you get them to come in for the long haul?

BD: I mean, that’s a hard question. But I do think that the message is that, you know, in every battle, in every fight against gentrification, in every fight against racism, there have been times when it felt like there was no win in sight. And we have seen gigantic social change in this country, and you never know at what point you are fighting in that battle. And so you better be in the battle. Like, you don’t want to be the person looking back at history and saying that you were apathetic, or you were the one excluding. There’s always a way to get involved on the right side in your local community, at the state level, at the national level.

And it is an urgent need. It is an urgent demand. It is an obligation of us, of being part of a community, to stay involved. And again, always, in the privilege seat–which you and I are in–you better not be more tired and more cynical than the folks who are in the most oppressed situation. If you can’t stand up next to folks who are in much worse situations because you’re too tired or you’re too cynical, that’s just not acceptable. We can do better than that.

RS: Well, let me push it a little further. I also think it’s clearly the way to give meaning to one’s life. And we shouldn’t be embarrassed to say that. We know that when it happens to one of our relatives. When they have trouble, when they lose their job, when they lose their way, they lose their mind, lose their health. Then we know that that’s–if we help them, that’s our best moment, it’s our most rewarding. The problem is, we don’t feel that way often enough about the so-called other.

We dehumanize them. The media helps us dehumanize them by just showing the danger or the–I remember, I worked at the L.A. Times, they had a series on the marauders. This goes back to Bill Clinton’s crime campaign, and you have this idea of these aliens coming out of South Central L.A. and invading all these otherwise wonderful communities, you know. But the fact of the matter is–and again, people should watch The Advocate. Or how do they work with you? Just show up at Venice community–

BD: Yes, absolutely, they can find us online, it’s easy to connect with us.

RS: OK. And the fact of the matter is, it informs your life at every level to do this kind of work. And if you don’t do it, it’s all just talk. Right?

BD: Yeah.

RS: So the final takeaway, we’re going to invite–you’re going to invite, I can’t get too political here. But you’re going to invite all these candidates to show up?

BD: We’ll give it our best shot.

RS: No, but I mean, wouldn’t that be as good a test–as good a single test of where they’re really coming from.

BD: Yep.

RS: Everything else is kind of fuzzy abstraction. OK. That’s it for this edition of “Scheer Intelligence.” Our producer is Joshua Scheer, who’s arranged all this. And Sebastian Grubaugh, the brilliant engineer producer here at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. See you next week for another edition of “Scheer Intelligence.”

Robert Scheer
Editor in Chief
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41414
    • View Profile
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/17/us/los-angeles-yale-graduate-homeless/index.html

He was a Yale graduate, Wall Street banker and entrepreneur. Today he's homeless in Los Angeles

By Dan Simon, CNN
Updated 8:53 PM ET, Tue September 17, 2019


Los Angeles (CNN)Shawn Pleasants has the kind of resume that would attract the attention of any job recruiter: high school valedictorian, economics major from Yale University, Wall Street banking jobs, small business entrepreneur. But a few wrong turns in life 10 years ago left him homeless, and today he's living underneath a tarp in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles.
He's been told before that a smart and capable person like him should not be in this situation.
"But I'm like, should anybody be here? Who should, then?" Pleasants said.
Last week, Trump administration officials came to Los Angeles to examine the homelessness crisis. The President, who clashes with California politicians on a number of issues, has made frequent reference to the state's failure to solve the problem.

Shawn Pleasants&#39; Yale yearbook photo.
Shawn Pleasants' Yale yearbook photo.
Trump is visiting the West Coast this week, amid reports that his administration is about to launch a crackdown on homelessness -- potentially involving dismantling encampments and moving the homeless en masse into a government facility, according to the Washington Post. (It's not clear how this would work or whether the President has the authority to order this kind of action.)
Against that backdrop, Pleasants' story is a reminder of how complex the problem of homelessness can be. "It means it can happen to anybody. It's a problem we all could face," Pleasants said, standing on a sidewalk in front of his weathered belongings. A couple of unopened cereal boxes that he just collected from a food pantry sit atop his things.
Shawn Pleasants now.
Shawn Pleasants now.
"I am responsible for my own choices. I own all my decisions," he said plainly before telling his story.
Pleasants, 52, is one of 60,000 people living on the streets of Los Angeles County. The situation has been worsening in recent years -- between 2018 and 2019, the number of homeless people went up 12% in the county and 16% in the city, according to the Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count. Along LA's skid row downtown, tents line entire blocks, and encampments in other neighborhoods have been growing.
Mike Dickerson, an organizer for the homeless advocacy group Ktown for All, says the stories of many people living on the streets might surprise you.
In pictures: L.A.&#39;s homelessness crisis
Photos: In pictures: L.A.'s homelessness crisis
A man gestures while seated beside a Skid Row painting on May 30.
Pedestrians walk past a tent on Skid Row on May 30.
Carlos Gonzalez Jr., an Army veteran who was stationed in Japan and Thailand, talks about his living situation before going to sleep in a Safe Parking LA location near a Veterans Affairs health care center in Los Angeles on February 11. Half a dozen such lots monitored by security guards have sprung up in the Los Angeles area in the last year, offering a temporary 12-hour safe haven for some of the estimated 9,000 people across the city who live in their cars or RVs.
A pedestrian walks past a man sleeping on a sidewalk in Los Angeles on May 30.
Tents and tarps erected by homeless people are shown along the sidewalks in Skid Row on June 4.
A man lies on the sidewalk in Los Angeles on June 5.
A homeless person sleeps on the sidewalk next to a Los Angeles County vehicle on June 4.
A homeless man walks along a street lined with trash across from a Los Angeles police station on May 30.
A homeless person&#39;s tent is pitched on a sidewalk underneath Interstate 110 on January 3.
A homeless person sleeps in downtown Los Angeles on May 24.
Travis Stanley, who said he has been homeless for three months and is a Navy veteran, poses for a portrait on June 5 beneath an overpass where he usually sleeps.
A child rides her scooter past a homeless person in Santa Monica on June 3.
Homeless people gather on the streets of Skid Row near downtown Los Angeles on March 1. A lack of affordable housing in the city is the primary factor driving the spike in homelessness, according to Mayor Eric Garcetti.
A homeless person sleeps on the sidewalk in Skid Row on June 4.
Tents and homeless people&#39;s belongings crowd a sidewalk in Skid Row on May 30. The city of Los Angeles agreed on May 29 to allow homeless people on Skid Row to keep their property and not have it seized, providing the items are not too bulky or hazardous.
A homeless man sleeps on a sidewalk in Los Angeles on March 10.
A tour bus passes a homeless encampment located beneath an overpass on June 5.
A man gestures while seated beside a Skid Row painting on May 30.
Pedestrians walk past a tent on Skid Row on May 30.
Carlos Gonzalez Jr., an Army veteran who was stationed in Japan and Thailand, talks about his living situation before going to sleep in a Safe Parking LA location near a Veterans Affairs health care center in Los Angeles on February 11. Half a dozen such lots monitored by security guards have sprung up in the Los Angeles area in the last year, offering a temporary 12-hour safe haven for some of the estimated 9,000 people across the city who live in their cars or RVs.
A pedestrian walks past a man sleeping on a sidewalk in Los Angeles on May 30.
Tents and tarps erected by homeless people are shown along the sidewalks in Skid Row on June 4.
A man lies on the sidewalk in Los Angeles on June 5.
A homeless person sleeps on the sidewalk next to a Los Angeles County vehicle on June 4.
A homeless man walks along a street lined with trash across from a Los Angeles police station on May 30.
A homeless person&#39;s tent is pitched on a sidewalk underneath Interstate 110 on January 3.
A homeless person sleeps in downtown Los Angeles on May 24.
Travis Stanley, who said he has been homeless for three months and is a Navy veteran, poses for a portrait on June 5 beneath an overpass where he usually sleeps.
A child rides her scooter past a homeless person in Santa Monica on June 3.
Homeless people gather on the streets of Skid Row near downtown Los Angeles on March 1. A lack of affordable housing in the city is the primary factor driving the spike in homelessness, according to Mayor Eric Garcetti.
A homeless person sleeps on the sidewalk in Skid Row on June 4.
Tents and homeless people&#39;s belongings crowd a sidewalk in Skid Row on May 30. The city of Los Angeles agreed on May 29 to allow homeless people on Skid Row to keep their property and not have it seized, providing the items are not too bulky or hazardous.
A homeless man sleeps on a sidewalk in Los Angeles on March 10.
A tour bus passes a homeless encampment located beneath an overpass on June 5.
A man gestures while seated beside a Skid Row painting on May 30.
01B LA homelessness
02 LA homelessness
03 LA homelessness
04 LA homelessness
05 LA homelessness
06 LA homelessness
07 LA homelessness
08 LA homelessness
09 LA homelessness
10 LA homelessness
11 LA homelessness
12 LA homelessness
13 LA homelessness
14 LA homelessness
15 LA homelessness
16 LA homelessness
17 LA homelessness
"I think a lot of people have this perception that danger lurks in the encampments," he said. "And for myself and for other volunteers, what we found is people who are just people like everyone else, who have fallen into hard times, whether that's because of their own personal issues of because their landlord evicted them or because the rent rose in a way they could no longer pay."
One man's journey into homelessness
Pleasants grew up in San Antonio, Texas, the product of a stable, loving family who always excelled in school, according to his younger brother, Michael.
Their mother was a teacher, while their father made a career in the Air Force.
"He was always as a young child taking things apart and putting them back together," said Michael Pleasants, who followed his brother's footsteps to Yale. "He was a whiz kid."
"He (Shawn) played trombone and won several civic awards around the city."
Shawn Pleasants in first grade.
Shawn Pleasants in first grade.
Pleasants also overcame a physical disability. He was born with a club foot and wore leg braces throughout his childhood, his brother said. His doctor joked he would never run a marathon. In fact, his brother said, he's run several, and was in peak physical condition through his 20s.
Pleasants was a high school valedictorian, who had offers from multiple colleges, according to his brother.
Shawn chose Yale and said he received grants and several academic scholarships, which covered most of his tuition. CNN has verified that he graduated from the university.
Shawn Pleasants at his Yale graduation with his mom, Gloria.
Shawn Pleasants at his Yale graduation with his mom, Gloria.
He majored in economics, and after a few years toiling on Wall Street, including jobs at Morgan Stanley, he landed in California. Trying to fulfill a Hollywood dream, he started a photography and filmmaking company.
It was the mid-'90s, and as the DVD industry soon exploded, his company got involved in the then-lucrative world of the adult film industry. They made so much money that Pleasants wound up buying a large home in the Silver Lake neighborhood of Los Angeles.
"It was a beautiful house, something you'd see on MTV," said his brother.
03 Shawn Pleasants
But amid squabbles with his co-founders, the income dried up.
"By the time it was all sorted out, there was no business," Shawn Pleasants said.
About 10 years ago, around the same time, he also lost his mother to cancer, and her death sent him into an emotional and physical tailspin.
He went from living one place to another, eventually living out of his car before he lost that as well, his brother said.
Pleasants is gay, and considers himself to be married to another homeless man he's been with for 10 years, since before they were on the streets.
They live on the streets together, acting as a sort of team. They've held court on the same Koreatown sidewalks for six years.
"We're actually in the middle of a move," he said, explaining that some of their things are few blocks away.
He grimaced at the notion of ever going to a shelter.
"They're always set up with such rigid protocols. I would leave the place immediately," he said.
Pleasants believes a shelter would restrict his freedom and is concerned he wouldn't be able to keep all of his things due to a lack of space.
"I would prefer to be somewhere where I can still go to the library and do the things I need to do when I need to do them."
04 Shawn Pleasants
Like many of the nation's homeless, drugs, specifically meth, are a part of Pleasants' life.
He said he began using the drug before he became homeless, but insists it's not what led him to the streets.
His brother says his path toward addiction began while he was recovering from a back injury before he was homeless. "It started with pain killers, and then when they were too expensive or not accessible he medicated with other things."
Shawn Pleasants said he takes meth a few times a week as both an escape and to help him stay awake at night.
"Every time you sleep, that's when you lose and when people come and take your things," he said.
"I'm a heavy sleeper. I lose a lot."
Surviving on the streets
Pleasants has both a laptop and a cell phone. The phone and its service are free under an Obama-era program. He spends a lot of time at the library, accessing the internet and staying on top of current events.
Streets full of tents: The other side of L.A.

Streets full of tents: The other side of L.A. 03:45
He has sustained himself by understanding the schedule of where and when to get free meals -- using his natural intelligence to develop an efficient schedule.
"There's certain churches (that provide meals), certain food pantries -- you learn those schedules," he explained.
When asked whether Pleasants suffers from mental illness, his brother said, "I think he has episodic depression. He can go through periods of extreme depression where he will self-medicate, but then he can go through periods of being equally upbeat, resilient, and energetic."
The family has tried repeatedly to get him help, his brother said. There is a standing offer for him to move in with his 86-year-old father in San Antonio. Long-term, they would like to see him find an affordable option close to them -- perhaps through a government assistance program.
But Pleasants is defiant.
"I am not trying to bring another family member down," he said.
"I fell into it. I have to climb my way out of it."
The fact that he graduated from an Ivy League school, owned a house and made a nice living, he said, should not come as a shock.
Gesturing to a nearby tent encampment, he said, "You'll find musicians, there's a photographer, you've got all different types of people."
Dickerson says that to get people off the streets, more affordable housing needs to be created.
"I think people point to things like mental illness or like drug abuse, which do exist in this population, but they aren't the primary problem," he said.
"The idea that we're going to force people into a facility that's probably located in a very remote area is not a solution. That's not going to connect people to jobs, to housing, to services (like) mental health and addiction treatment."
"And more importantly, putting thousands of people into a giant building isn't going to get them housed if there's nowhere for them to permanently live that they can afford," he added.
Pleasants said more practical measures such as bathing facilities are desperately needed.
"We need places to shower, if you don't want us to have hygiene issues," he said. "And in order to get a job, we need to have clean clothes. Where do I iron? How do I keep them pressed?"

When asked how he'll eventually find his way out of this life, Pleasants expressed the kind of confidence that originally made him a standout.
"I'm gonna start a small business again," he said, flashing a smile.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41414
    • View Profile
🏕️ A Crash Course on How to Handle Homelessness
« Reply #82 on: November 16, 2019, 04:30:32 AM »
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/a-crash-course-on-how-to-handle-homelessness/

Nov 15, 2019

TD originals
A Crash Course on How to Handle Homelessness

A Crash Course on How to Handle Homelessness


A section of Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. (Russ Allison Loar)(CC BY-SA 4.0)

I really discovered homelessness for the first time when I left my job at an upscale Hollywood radio station in 1987 to work at a downscale downtown newspaper.

Hollywood certainly had its homeless people, but at that time, in that place, their condition seemed minor, temporary, manageable: street kids, runaways, a smattering of burned-out hippies. Nothing that a little counseling, a little rehab, a little assistance in reconnecting with family members probably couldn’t fix easily enough.

It was certainly nothing systemic. Or so I thought, wrongly. What I’ve learned since is that the issue is far more complex than I could possibly have imagined. There are almost as many causes of homelessness as there are homeless individuals. Their homelessness may not just be a status they temporarily experience; it can become an existential condition, a syndrome they have fallen into that must be addressed incrementally, not a problem that can simply be solved in one swift, bold stroke. Bookshelves are groaning with 10-year plans that failed to deliver, if they were ever implemented at all.

I would eventually discover that it is simply not true that everyone wants to get off the street, clean up, submit to a conventional regimen. Whatever the professional advocates tell you, seasoned social workers know better. There are homeless individuals who genuinely are “service-resistant,” but that implies more agency and volition than many homeless street people actually possess. Even those who sincerely want to escape their homelessness simply may never be able to do what is necessary to regain their autonomy and self-sufficiency.

Liberals and progressives blame Darwinian social policy and the ravages of capitalism. Conservatives blame an indulgent society and personal moral failings. But imposing such an ideological overlay is profoundly unhelpful and leads inevitably to a false binary choice: Either more money or more discipline is needed. A more honest approach recognizes the need for both. Building shelter and providing support services demands more public investment than we historically have been willing to make, but not tending to the plight of people living on the street can no longer be an option for any community. It denotes not respect for their rights, but neglect of our obligations. As a practical political matter, we cannot continue asking the public for more funding without delivering something tangible in return. We must find an ethical and constitutional way to bring the homeless population in off the street.

*       *       *

When I joined the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, I got “woke” to the issue pretty fast. The Herald’s once-grand, Julia Morgan-designed building was located at 11th and Broadway, what we used to call the “ass-end” of downtown. It stood barely four blocks from the official boundary of skid row, a 50-square-block area bound by Third and Seventh Streets on the north and south, and by Alameda and Main Streets on the east and west.

In that era, there was no LA Live. There was no Staples Center. There was no new and improved Convention Center. There was only blight, neglect, decay and human wreckage on a scale I could never have imagined, and the local government seemed to be doing nothing about it. There, homelessness was an existential condition, signifying a greater pathology of severe illness, disability and official neglect.

By design, skid row had been left to rot by the city for decades; the policy was containment, not eradication. The strategy called for the city’s Community Redevelopment Agency to subsidize commercial and market-rate residential development in the area, with a token affordable-housing element to grease the approvals. The city would blunt political opposition to the resulting gentrification by throwing a few bucks to the skid row social-service agencies to keep them pacified and hopefully even win their support. The media would play its part by boosting the poverty agencies and their leaders with puffy human-interest features while promoting all the shiny new developments in the business and real estate news. But nothing really changed for the impoverished residents of skid row.

Downtown at that time was represented by Councilman Gilbert Lindsay, the self-proclaimed “Emperor of the Great Ninth District.” Gil was notorious for promoting new development at the expense of providing for displaced populations and offsetting the loss of affordable housing units. He actively resisted bringing more social services to skid row, insisting it would only attract more homeless and discourage the kind of big-ticket skyline he hoped would be his legacy.

In 1988, the 88-year-old Lindsay suffered a stroke but ran for reelection the next year, seeking a seventh term. His endorsement interview with us was a pathetic display. Mentally, he was clearly out of it; his girlfriend, some 50 years younger, perched on his knee for the entire meeting. He was reelected anyway. The following year, he suffered another stroke and died in office. Several years later, his family (represented by Johnnie Cochran) sued the girlfriend for ripping off the estate and won a $235,000 judgment. A 10-foot monument to the “Emperor” stands today in front of the Convention Center.

To say that city leadership was somewhat lacking in those twilight years of Mayor Tom Bradley’s long tenure would be an understatement.

I was shocked and sickened by what I saw downtown. A few months after joining the Herald, in a column titled “Los Angeles Doesn’t Care Anymore,” I had written:

    The 1982 film “Blade Runner” has become the catch-all metaphor for the degraded future of urban life in Los Angeles. … The inescapable conclusion after living and working here is that Los Angeles, for all its purported affluence, glamor and sophistication, is becoming a city that is not unable, but unwilling, to care for itself. … On every street I drive, bag people are sleeping on benches, slumped in doorways, or huddled on the sidewalk. … On the radio, their voices plead for shelter and jobs. … I read about them being shuffled from the City Hall lawn to abandoned public buildings to vacant-lot “camps.” A county supervisor proposes to ship them out to a rusty hulk anchored in the LA harbor. One councilmember wants to truck them out to a military base, another would send them to Terminal Island. The city attorney sues the county over the problem.

I concluded: “The larger problem is that some time back, we collectively made an informal, unstated, but nevertheless binding decision to give up trying to make the city work. … The “Blade Runner” analogy actually has it backwards. In the film, frustrated replicant creatures yearn for human love and companionship. The inhabitants of today’s bleak cityscape, by contrast, seem ready to embrace their dehumanized, violent future.”

I wrote that in 1987. “Blade Runner” was set in 2019; its dystopian future is now.

*     *     *

After the Herald folded in 1989, I joined the office of Third District County Supervisor Ed Edelman. I was now part of a political staff actually trying to do something for homeless people, not just another journalist writing about them.

Ed’s supervisorial district, like Lindsay’s council district, at that time included downtown and skid row. Unlike Lindsay, Ed sincerely tried to improve the situation, but he was constrained by fiscal and political realities. Southern California was sinking into a serious post-Cold War economic recession that was driving up the demand for services while reducing the tax revenue to pay for them. And the Board of Supervisors was then ruled by a conservative Republican majority with little appetite for social-service spending in any event.

Some of it, frankly, was also probably due to a lack of vision. We never tried to reimagine homeless policy or champion major systemic change. We nibbled around the margin, raising the temperature triggers to extend the operating days of cold-weather homeless shelters. We fought against budget cuts to health, mental health care and substance-abuse programs. We tried to publicly shame skid row markets out of further exploiting and immiserating their alcoholic clientele by discouraging their marketing of king-size malt liquor and cheap fortified wines.

We tried, but failed, to avoid a punishing reduction in the county’s general relief payments, the minimal amount of public assistance available to single adults. Over Ed’s objections, the board slashed the monthly relief benefit from a high of $350 in 1991 down to $221, roughly the 1981 level, by scoring the “in-kind” cash value of health services and discounting the monthly cash benefit by that amount. Had we only indexed that 1981 benefit for inflation, relief recipients today would receive $624 per month. As it is, their benefits are only worth $78 in constant 1981 dollars. It is a shame and a scandal that today’s board still has not increased that stipend.

We also struggled over how to identify eligible recipients and quality them for the federal Supplemental Security Insurance program, which would have paid disabled recipients around $900 a month, saving the county money while greatly boosting their public assistance. Today, the internet offers expanded opportunities to accomplish that. But imagine, as a disabled relief recipient, trying to hack your way today through this online bureaucratic thicket to qualify, or getting yourself to a county Department of Public Social Services office to seek help in person.

After a federal civil rights lawsuit redrew the formerly gerrymandered districts and made possible Gloria Molina’s election in 1991, a new Democratic majority emerged. One of its first actions was to settle a five-year lawsuit in which the city and county had sued each other over who bore principal responsibility for addressing homelessness. As part of the settlement, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority was created as a joint-powers agency to better coordinate homeless policy. After more than 25 years, about the kindest thing you can say is that it’s still a work in progress—and still has a lot of problems, even as the homeless count continues to swell.

Ed retired from public office in 1994 but continued his homelessness efforts as a consultant to the city of Santa Monica. I joined the staff of his successor, Zev Yaroslavsky (who had earlier also succeeded Ed in his City Council seat). Midway through Zev’s first term, a major fiscal crisis in the county’s health department, with the potential for actually bankrupting the county, took precedence over everything else for several years. That was followed by public safety and law enforcement priorities in the wake of 9/11. It wasn’t until 2004-2005 that the county board began to refocus on homelessness.

In spring of 2006, at the supervisors’ direction, County Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen put forward a comprehensive new Homeless Prevention Initiative (HPI) that identified the three principal factors fueling the homeless crisis: 1) the lack of permanent, affordable housing; 2) insufficient resources and funding to help clients achieve and sustain self-sufficiency; and 3) severe psycho-emotional impairment of clients related to, and exacerbated by, substance abuse and/or mental illness.

The plan, with $100 million in new and previously committed county funding, offered a number of recommendations to address the shortage of emergency, transitional and permanent housing, the need for stepped-up medical care and substance abuse treatment, and assistance in finding housing, qualifying for benefits and dealing with law enforcement and criminal justice issues around homelessness and poverty. Recognizing the regional nature of homelessness, the HPI proposed five regional stabilization centers, one in each supervisorial district, which were intended as alternatives to jail for minor offenses, and for those discharged from jail or county hospitals as an alternative to the street.

Unsurprisingly, none of it was ever implemented. There was so much community opposition that not one stabilization center ever opened, and the rest of the plan fell by the wayside. The money ended up being shoveled instead into existing programs and departments, where it disappeared without a trace.

A year or two later, Zev revived the homeless issue with a bold, and then largely untested, approach: He called it Project 50, a pilot program intended to identify 50 of skid row’s most vulnerable homeless people, those most at risk of dying on the street based on multiple factors including age, health, substance abuse, mental illness and years of living on the street, and bring them into permanent supportive housing (PSH.) It was a “housing first” harm-reduction model, recognizing that they might not be sober and they might still be using, but that it was unrealistic to expect them to clean up on the street before they were eligible to come in out of the cold. If they could get shelter and services first, it would be easier to address their health needs and break the vicious cycle of street, emergency room, court, jail and street again.

The premise was that there were so-called “shot-callers” who functioned as de facto influencers and leaders in the homeless community, and the strategy was that if we could work with them to help cull out and assist the hardest of the hardcore homeless street people, we could certainly succeed with less intractable cases. It would create a new dynamic that would justify scaling up the pilot program to encompass more homeless in other parts of the county.

We also believed it would be less expensive to convert or build, and operate, permanent supportive housing than to keep subsidizing the enormously expensive “frequent flyers” who couldn’t stay out of jail or the ER.

It took months of effort to break down the bureaucratic silos that hampered interagency, law enforcement and judicial cooperation. In addition, what we called the homeless-industrial complex—the network of conventional, long-established soup kitchens, drug and alcohol treatment programs, midnight missions, shelters, transitional housing, community-based health care nonprofits and single-room occupancy operators—fiercely opposed a radically new service model that threatened their standing. They argued that building PSH units would take too long and drain too much money from other vital services, and that housing substance abusers while leaving nonusers out on the street was unfair, sent the wrong message, and would ultimately prove unworkable. And they had the political clout to really monkey-wrench the plan.

Our early evaluations showed that most of the clients were able to stabilize and remain in shelter. With a place to live and better medical treatment, they had fewer brushes with the law and needed fewer costly ER visits. But scaling up proved much more arduous than we anticipated—it was more costly and sparked more community resistance, more law enforcement and judicial opposition when they saw the plan as all carrot, no stick. In 2009, after we had just suffered the worst recession since the Great Depression, the Board of Supervisors balked when asked to expand the successful pilot from Project 50 to Project 500.

That was the last major homeless initiative undertaken before I left the county near the end of 2015. But from August 2015 to February 2016, county agencies mounted yet another County Homeless Initiative and formulated yet another bold new action plan to combat homelessness. Following up on that plan, in November 2016, while the country was electing Donald Trump president, city voters opened their wallets and approved Measure HHH, a $1.2 billion city housing bond that promised 10,000 new permanent supportive housing units within 10 years. Some of us have been deeply skeptical of that boast for some time, and a recent city audit also threw shade on the promise.

Meanwhile, county voters in March 2017 subsequently approved another 10-year homeless funding measure, a countywide parcel tax, which will generate about $355 million a year to be earmarked for a combination of services, rent subsidies and new housing. Its most recently posted roster of funding recommendations largely covers the same well-trod ground as all the other plans and proposals. Will this money be spent any more efficiently and effectively than all those earlier efforts? Will it take us where we need to go?

I don’t think it will. When the city is spending a median cost of $531,000 to develop and construct a single unit of permanent supportive housing that was originally estimated to cost around $350,000-$414,000—and a recent Los Angeles Times analysis concluded that the percentage of street homeless suffering from mental illness and/or substance abuse was more than double LAHSA’s estimated 29%—it’s quite clear that there won’t be nearly enough money to build our way out of homelessness.

But my county experience also revealed a more fundamental dilemma that nobody in government even wants to talk about, much less attempt to address. Even if all the housing were somehow magically to be constructed, and all the social services were to be magically provided, there is no mechanism and no requirement to ensure that homeless people agree to use them. State legislation does not compel homeless people to seek or submit to treatment, even when available, and the courts have repeatedly rebuffed city efforts to conduct street sweeps and enforce vagrancy laws. Our public spaces on sidewalks, roadway medians, freeway ramps, underpasses, parks and public libraries are increasingly commandeered for the private use of homeless street people in ad hoc encampments that as a practical matter cannot legally be removed.

County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas and Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, both former state legislators who are appointees to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Homeless Task Force, have recently argued that California should recognize a right to shelter. Steinberg also argued in an op-ed that the homeless have a corresponding legal obligation to use it, but withering criticism from civil libertarians and homeless advocates backed them off calling for any obligation on the part of the homeless population to get off the street. Their revised policy position is now the same as homeless advocates have always taken: Build more housing, provide more services, and the homeless will avail themselves accordingly.

But what if they can’t, or won’t? Public officials will spend literally billions of dollars of public money with no visible progress on a problem that has been growing steadily worse for more than 50 years. The seeds were planted back in the early 1960s, when the deinstitutionalization movement emerged as purportedly more humane mental-health treatment than state mental hospitals or asylums; new wonder drugs promised to treat mental illness more effectively on an outpatient basis. Community-based group homes and board-and-care facilities offered a more intimate and natural setting than forbidding lockdown facilities where patients historically had been subjected to physical and sexual abuse. But virtually none of those promised community-based replacement facilities ever emerged.

In this respect, my own family has been fortunate. My grandmother’s younger sister, my mother’s aunt, was diagnosed with an incurable mental illness, probably schizophrenia, and was permanently institutionalized in Illinois in the 1930s. While I heard stories from my mother, I never had the opportunity to meet her Aunt Elaine, but I gathered that family members visited regularly, and although there were clearly some lapses, they found her generally well cared for. She apparently lived into her mid-80s. How long would a woman like her have survived on the street?

We must be prepared to create a new mental-health and wellness system for the 21st century, one that includes both community-based outpatient and congregate-living facilities as well as regional hospitals and long-term residential facilities, and we must be willing to accept the idea of reinstitutionalization. This will mean both a change of mindset and a change in state law. I don’t minimize the challenges of squaring respect for patient rights and individual liberty with the interests and needs of the larger community of which they are a part. But I believe it must be done.

Until we recognize that the most severely addicted, mentally ill or infirm among our street population not only cannot, and may never be able to, care for themselves—and are also unable to give informed consent even for their own lifesaving care and treatment—buildings alone will never solve the homelessness crisis that our own naiveté, indifference and cruelty has created.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41414
    • View Profile
🏕️ Troopers evict Butte compound squatters
« Reply #83 on: November 16, 2019, 05:17:46 AM »
...and now, here's how we handle Homelessness on the Last Great Frontier.  Bring on the Gestapo!

RE

https://www.ktva.com/story/41329155/troopers-evict-butte-compound-squatters

Troopers evict Butte compound squatters
Friday, November 15th 2019, 1:23 PM AKST
By: Heather Hintze


Alaska State Troopers evicted about a dozen people who were squatting on a property in the Butte referred to as “The Compound.”

Neighbors in the area said it’s a day they’ve been waiting for.

“It feels good,” Mike Morrow said. “The first step is to get the illegals off, and we’ll work on cleanup.”

Troopers received a writ of assistance, which is a court order, from the property owners who are out of state.

Lt. Brent Johnson explained a writ of assistance “basically empowers law enforcement to take action that would normally not be within our normal purview, so like an eviction essentially.”

Troopers evicted the people without incident, and no one was arrested.

Neighbors said squatters have been a major issue on the land for years. The issue was the subject of a large community meeting with troopers and state representatives in October.

There are dozens of cars and campers scattered throughout the 7.5-acre property on Bodenburg Loop.

Johnson said nine Alaska State Troopers, wildlife troopers and judicial services officers were there to help with the eviction.

“Based on the size of the property we brought more manpower than we probably would. Safety is our number one concern both for us and the neighborhood — for even the folks that are here. We just want people to move on and not be here anymore,” Johnson said.

Johnson said the property owner and the court have given people a couple of weeks to remove all of their personal property from the area. The people have to be escorted in by neighbors, like Morrow, who’ve been designated as the troopers’ point of contact.

“We want to clean up the community, we want to get rid of the riffraff. We want to get the illegal activities cleaned up and make it a great place for people to live,” Morrow said.

Morrow and another neighbor moved barriers in front of the driveway and put up "No Trespassing" signs.

If residents see any activity at the Bodenburg compound they can call trooper dispatch at 352-5401. The case number for reference is 3PA-19-01967CI.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41414
    • View Profile
🏕️ Paradise Lost: Homeless in Los Angeles
« Reply #84 on: November 30, 2019, 12:11:56 PM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/9D9pZEjSxXQ" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/9D9pZEjSxXQ</a>
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41414
    • View Profile
🏕️ What Happens When Cities Make Homelessness a Crime: Hiding The Homeless
« Reply #85 on: November 30, 2019, 04:07:17 PM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/nYFeY2pS0ks" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/nYFeY2pS0ks</a>
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41414
    • View Profile
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/16/homeless-supreme-court-living-street-crime/4403793002/

Supreme Court refuses to consider cities' efforts to prosecute the homeless for sleeping outside
Richard Wolf    Chris Woodyard
USA TODAY


WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider whether state and local governments can make it a crime for homeless people to sleep outside.

The justices won't hear a case from Boise, Idaho, that posed nationwide ramifications for cities with large numbers of homeless people living on the streets.

The question was whether the homeless can be prosecuted using laws designed to regulate public camping and sleeping – or whether that constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

The court's refusal to take up the issue is a setback to some states and cities with burgeoning homelessness. They had hoped a federal appeals court ruling would be overturned, allowing them to prosecute people who sleep on streets when they claim shelter beds are unavailable. Boise had appealed the ruling, hoping to enforce its ban on camping in public.

"We’re thrilled that the court has let the 9th Circuit decision stand so that homeless people are not punished for sleeping on the streets when they have no other option," said Maria Foscarinis, executive director of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. "But ultimately, our goal is to end homelessness through housing, which is effective and saves taxpayer dollars, so that no one has to sleep on the streets in the first place."

The issue arises as tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets of cities, especially in the West, where they pitch tents on sidewalks or under bridges, live in cars or simply sleep out in the open.

Sleeping on the streets:Cities are pushing back against homeless people

In Los Angeles alone, the homeless authority counted 27,221 people as being unsheltered.

The notion of recriminalizing homelessness at a time when shelters are bulging enrages advocates.

"Criminalization isn't a strategy for ending homelessness. It is the consequence of not having a strategy," said Nan Roman, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

Trump's view:Homeless shelters promote homelessness
A homeless man made a fire from trash to keep warm on Thanksgiving Day in Los Angeles. The Supreme Court has been asked to let cities criminalize homelessness.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled last year that prosecuting homeless individuals violated the Constitution because their situation was an "unavoidable consequence of one’s status or being.”

That was only the latest shoe to drop in a case dating back more than 10 years. It was initiated by six homeless people who were fined for violating an ordinance in Boise, a city of 225,000 that operates three homeless shelters serving about 900 people.

"Sleeping outside is a biological necessity for those who cannot obtain shelter," lawyers for the homeless individuals said in court papers. "A city that criminalizes both sleeping on private property and public property when no alternative shelter is available leaves a homeless individual who cannot obtain shelter with no capacity to comply with the law."

Boise sought the Supreme Court's intervention, and it brought along support from a wide range of states, cities and business groups that filed 20 friend-of-the-court briefs warning of crime, violence, disease and environmental hazards.

"The consequences of the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous decision have already been – and will continue to be – far-reaching and catastrophic," its lawyers told the court. "Encampments provide a captive and concentrated market for drug dealers and gangs who prey on the vulnerable. It is thus no surprise that nearly 1,000 homeless people died on the streets last year in Los Angeles County alone."

A new report from the National Law Center for Homelessness and Poverty found a 15% increase over three years in the number of cities that punish homeless people for sleeping in public, even as the number of unsheltered homeless rose by 10%.

Advocates for the homeless say fining or arresting people who have nowhere else to go amounts to "arresting exhausted, deeply poor and vulnerable Americans struggling to meet the most basic human need for sleep," said Diane Yentel, CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Court challenges such as the one from Boise are sapping money that could be poured into trying to solve the core problem of homelessness, said the Rev. Andy Bales, CEO of the Union Rescue Mission in Los Angeles.

The country instead should be "focusing on immediate 24/7/365 shelters with comprehensive services and case management," he said, plus affordable, permanent housing.

Contributing: Kristin Lam
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41414
    • View Profile
The Homeless win a round!  :icon_sunny:

 :multiplespotting:

RE

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/16/788435163/supreme-court-wont-hear-case-to-ticket-homeless-for-sleeping-in-public-spaces


Supreme Court Won't Hear Case On Ban Against Homeless Sleeping In Public Spaces

December 16, 20191:10 PM ET

Vanessa Romo    Kirk Siegler


San Francisco police officers wait while homeless people collect their belongings. Nearly a quarter of the country's homeless population lives in California.
Ben Margot/AP

Updated at 1:40 p.m ET

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal in a case originating from Boise, Idaho, that would have made it a crime to camp and sleep in public spaces.

The decision to let a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stand is a setback for states and local governments in much of the West that are grappling with widespread homelessness by designing laws to regulate makeshift encampments on sidewalks and parks.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed nearly a decade ago. A handful of people sued the city of Boise for repeatedly ticketing them for violating an ordinance against sleeping outside. While Boise officials later amended it to prohibit citations when shelters are full, the 9th Circuit eventually determined the local law was unconstitutional.

In a decision last year, the court said it was "cruel and unusual punishment" to enforce rules that stop homeless people from camping in public places when they have no place else to go. That means states across the 9th Circuit can no longer enforce similar statutes if they don't have enough shelter beds for homeless people sleeping outside.

Los Angeles attorney Theane Evangelis, who is representing Boise in the case, argued the decision ultimately harms the people it purports to protect because cities need the ability to control encampments that threaten public health and safety.

"Cities' hands are tied now by the 9th Circuit Decision because it effectively creates a Constitutional right to camp," Evangelis told NPR in an emailed statement.

In court documents, lawyers for Boise said, "Public encampments, now protected by the Constitution under the Ninth Circuit's decision, have spawned crime and violence, incubated disease, and created environmental hazards that threaten the lives and well-being both of those living on the streets and the public at large."

Major West Coast cities and counties with soaring homeless populations had backed Boise in its petition, including Los Angeles County, where the number of people without a permanent place to live has jumped by 16% in the past year.

As NPR reported, California is where nearly a quarter of the country's homeless population lives.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41414
    • View Profile
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/us/homelessness-increase-us-spike-california/index.html


Homelessness rose 2.7% in 2019, driven by a surge in California, HUD says


By Madeline Holcombe, CNN
Updated 1:57 AM ET, Sat December 21, 2019


What can be done about America's homeless crisis? 05:13

(CNN)The homeless population in the US increased 2.7% this year largely because of a surge in unsheltered and chronically homeless individuals in California, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) said in a news release Friday.
The study found that 567,715 people across the nation experienced homelessness on a single night in 2019, an increase of 14,885 people compared with 2018. Meanwhile, homelessness among veterans and families with children declined in the year, dropping 2.1% and 4.8%, respectively.
The number of people experiencing homelessness dropped in 29 states and Washington, DC in 2019, the news release said. But the rise in homelessness in California and elsewhere on the West Coast "offset" the nationwide decreases, the office said.

"As we look across our nation, we see great progress, but we're also seeing a continued increase in street homelessness along our West Coast where the cost of housing is extremely high," HUD Secretary Ben Carson said in the release. "In fact, homelessness in California is at a crisis level and needs to be addressed by local and state leaders with crisis-like urgency."

An additional 21,306 people were homeless in California in 2019, up 16.4% from the previous year, HUD said.
The data comes after the Trump administration sent a team of officials on a "fact finding" trip to California in September to learn more about homelessness in Los Angeles.

The homeless population in Los Angeles County increased to almost 60,000 people in 2019, despite major investment in combating the crisis, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority said in a June report.
Thousands of people became homeless, the authority said, as a result of the economy, foster care, mental health, criminal justice and the housing market.
Save As Many As You Can

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
1614 Views
Last post December 20, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
by Snowleopard
1 Replies
850 Views
Last post October 02, 2015, 05:50:05 AM
by MKing
1 Replies
164 Views
Last post October 10, 2019, 04:38:52 PM
by Surly1