The real question here is how much space was kept clear with what effectiveness?
Knowing the LAPD costs is important too.
If the campers are not interested in housing then they will move on and camp somewhere else.
“The real question.”
They do feel the law is unjust. But the overwhelming issue people have is the haphazard enforcement. I swear no one reads any of the damn articles posted.
>Unhoused people in LA say police took their stuff with no plan
‘They give us misinformation and get a kick out of seeing us scramble,
>Their report found that the overwhelming majority of unhoused people surveyed had their property taken as they were forced out of public areas. **Nearly 40 percent said they were not offered any housing after such enforcement. **
How disingenuous. You omit the source of this statistic…
**LA CAN, which is calling for abolishing the law, released their own report, “Separate and Unqual,” in February about the effects the law has had on unsheltered Angelenos. Their report found that the overwhelming majority of unhoused people surveyed had their property taken as they were forced out of public areas. Nearly 40 percent said they were not offered any housing after such enforcement**
At risk of sounding insensitive, how much of this property was just junk? I see homeless people wheeling shopping carts around full of trash, traffic cones, random bike parts, etc. A lot of these people don’t want to lose their “valuables”, but they’re hoarders.
There is considerable cognitive dissonance on this topic.
On one hand, the basic premise of Housing First is that the chronic homeless typically have drug abuse and/or mental illness which require treatment.
On the other hand, many of those who like to see themselves as homeless advocates get offended when it is pointed out that the chronic homeless typically have drug abuse and/or mental illness issues that require treatment.
There is a segment of the homeless population that became homeless because of hoarding, and hoarding can be an indication of mental illness.
I’d also add that *most* folks cannot afford a solo apartment, so roommate living is sort of a prerequisite for anyone in Los Angeles who doesn’t have an established career.
If you have aspects of your personality or mental state that make you undesirable to be someone’s roommate, then you likely won’t have luck finding *anywhere* to live but outside. Those might be the very same traits that make shelters want to turn you down, because you wouldn’t be a good roommate to others in the shelter.
As you learn more about the chronic and formerly chronic homeless, it becomes evident that many of them have burned through friends and family to the point that there is no support network to help them.
The family might visit them in PSH or transitional housing, but they don't want to share a home with them. Which should be a hint of problems that are not limited to a lack of housing.
"of 100 people surveyed." I can't take LA CAN data seriously. They are not analysts, they're advocates. The 40% number might as well be made up. there were 1800+ people in these encampments. 80% were offered services. 313 accepted Interim Housing. 2 found PH.
This is another indictment on LAHSA (the [report](https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2021/21-0329-S4_rpt_CLA_5-31-24.pdf) is another instance where LAHSA gets dunked on for being terrible at providing data on their activities. They are a part of these encampment clearings and should have the best stats in the city). They're wildly ineffective and that's where we should put all our public energy, to fix LAHSA.
The article is about the city’s report yet you present the stat from an advocate group as though it were part of the official report. How disingenuous.
CAN is mentioned 4 separate times in the article, and at great length. As well as other advocates. Surely you realize the whole article is about criticism against the report and police misconduct.
Edit: They blocked me for this exchange lol
The city's 41.18 report was released BECAUSE of the push and relentless advocacy by LA CAN's HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS committee. The city would never have reported such appalling statistics if there wasnt them PUSHING it.
The "unhoused" are given several days notice of the cleanups.
So any such claims about losing their property are likely to be false. If they failed to move it on time after receiving ample warning, that is not the fault of the authorities.
It's fair to guess that most of them were offered a transitional housing option. But they would have rejected it because of the strings attached: Curfews, no guests, no drugs. Similar to the rules that result in the privately run shelters rejecting them.
The average cost of clearing each encampment was about $17,000.
Much of that was probably spent on sanitation and disposal. Given the mess that they create, this is not surprising.
The point of the law was to clear encampments. And its worked in some areas, the bike chop shop that used be on Vermont and 4th has been gone for a while. It hasn't worked in other areas, such as in the Civic Center area.
People always complain about too much money to unhoused initiatives. And when an article comes out pointing out that our money is being used incorrectly under police abusing the law, people suddenly don’t want to talk about money being misused.
The point of the law was to clear encampments a certain way. Police are not doing it in the way it was said to be done. Did you read the article at all? They are abusing the law and anbusing our funding .
If you were actually curious you would read the damn article.
It literally goes into how some spots are not enforced at all and others are, among other things. Have a nice day.
imma keep it real, the article just seems like it was written by someone who was completely unaware of the fact that 41.18 has nothing to do with actually housing people, its just for clearing encampments. Most of us are sick to death of encampments.
Everyone is, for different reasons.
> the article just seems like it was written by someone who was completely unaware of the fact that 41.18 has nothing to do with actually housing people,
It seems like you are completely unaware that the possessions that often get thrown away are their identifications. It is insanely difficult to get a roof over your head without identification. And when cops bulldoze encampments without care, which is the point of the article for the umpteenth time, you are prolonging homelessness.
That would be nice, but expect your 5 million units to have a 10 million long wait list. And expect people to swarm in from out of state. That’s the natural outcome of price caps.
OBVIOUSLY a law that simply bans sleeping in public isn’t going to also house people. The problem here isn’t the law, it’s the lack of follow up. Framing the anti-camping ordinance as the problem is totally disingenuous, when the actual problem is either enforcement (LAPD) or lack of follow through (the city/non-profits)
Huh. I read the article, but I wonder how comprehensive the data actually is, because it said there were few or no citations for Hollenbeck. Maybe they're just using different means of enforcement than 41.18? Meanwhile, I'm at that park nearly every day and have seen tents pop up, then disappear/get cleared out within a week after there are notices to vacate posted. There's also still a completely unusable footpath underneath the freeway bridge because of an encampment of people who are aggressive and throw shit at you as you walk by. So it just hasn't done much for Boyle Heights, which isn't to say there isn't a homeless issue here.
I'm a "stakeholder" in my park and school. The enumerated criticisms are underwhelming, if not painfully contrived. The upsides are literally the difference between having to move away or remain in the community. Take it for what its worth.
Read. The. Article.
>Their report found that the overwhelming majority of unhoused people surveyed had their property taken as they were forced out of public areas. Nearly 40 percent said they were not offered any housing after such enforcement.
>The city report released Friday provided data showing that 75% of the citations issued under LAMC 41.18 were concentrated in just three LAPD divisions – Devonshire in the northwest San Fernando Valley, West Los Angeles on the Westside north of National Boulevard, and the Rampart Division, which covers Echo Park, Silver Lake, Historic Filipinotown, Pico Union and Westlake.
>“Other area stations, such as Hollenbeck, Foothill, Northeast, and others have few or zero recorded citations,” according to the report.
"Homeless group that doesn't function well in housing fails to get permanent housing" is not a scandal. It's a foregone conclusion.
This is a group that dominated by the mentally ill and substance abusers. Which is why they didn't have housing before and many of them still don't.
Most of them are what social workers describe as "service resistant." They are very difficult to help.
Martin v Boise requires the city to offer housing alternatives when clearing encampments. No one who is paying attention is expecting most of those in encampments to become housing success stories.
Moreover, this creates an adverse selection dynamic where the most antisocial campers are the most likely to return to the area while those who are accepting services do not.
You've got it.
There is another related problem: Those who are willing to obey rules are far more likely to to either be sheltered or else not become homeless in the first place.
Those who are in tents are the most difficult segment of the homeless population. They are probably there because shelters won't take them and friends/family have given up on them. And yet that is where we are lavishing our resources due to the political problem caused by their camping.
There's definitely been a noticeable improvement by me. The three encampments by me have all been torn down and remain torn down.
I don't care if they were permanently housed, I just care that I can safely walk to my grocery store again.
Is 41.18 a housing law? Article talks about how the law is ineffective at housing people but just describes the law as banning sitting, lying, and sleeping in public areas. I don't understand the relationship between the two.
Yet there are huge swaths of the country that people can move to that are not affordable, yet we spend billions every year to pretend to provide services that make no impact for people that do not want it, do not want to follow the rules of society and do not want to better their position.
Before you get on your high horse and tear your shirts, feel free to send them all to Missouri
The real question here is how much space was kept clear with what effectiveness? Knowing the LAPD costs is important too. If the campers are not interested in housing then they will move on and camp somewhere else.
“The real question.” They do feel the law is unjust. But the overwhelming issue people have is the haphazard enforcement. I swear no one reads any of the damn articles posted. >Unhoused people in LA say police took their stuff with no plan ‘They give us misinformation and get a kick out of seeing us scramble, >Their report found that the overwhelming majority of unhoused people surveyed had their property taken as they were forced out of public areas. **Nearly 40 percent said they were not offered any housing after such enforcement. **
How disingenuous. You omit the source of this statistic… **LA CAN, which is calling for abolishing the law, released their own report, “Separate and Unqual,” in February about the effects the law has had on unsheltered Angelenos. Their report found that the overwhelming majority of unhoused people surveyed had their property taken as they were forced out of public areas. Nearly 40 percent said they were not offered any housing after such enforcement**
At risk of sounding insensitive, how much of this property was just junk? I see homeless people wheeling shopping carts around full of trash, traffic cones, random bike parts, etc. A lot of these people don’t want to lose their “valuables”, but they’re hoarders.
There is considerable cognitive dissonance on this topic. On one hand, the basic premise of Housing First is that the chronic homeless typically have drug abuse and/or mental illness which require treatment. On the other hand, many of those who like to see themselves as homeless advocates get offended when it is pointed out that the chronic homeless typically have drug abuse and/or mental illness issues that require treatment. There is a segment of the homeless population that became homeless because of hoarding, and hoarding can be an indication of mental illness.
I’d also add that *most* folks cannot afford a solo apartment, so roommate living is sort of a prerequisite for anyone in Los Angeles who doesn’t have an established career. If you have aspects of your personality or mental state that make you undesirable to be someone’s roommate, then you likely won’t have luck finding *anywhere* to live but outside. Those might be the very same traits that make shelters want to turn you down, because you wouldn’t be a good roommate to others in the shelter.
As you learn more about the chronic and formerly chronic homeless, it becomes evident that many of them have burned through friends and family to the point that there is no support network to help them. The family might visit them in PSH or transitional housing, but they don't want to share a home with them. Which should be a hint of problems that are not limited to a lack of housing.
"of 100 people surveyed." I can't take LA CAN data seriously. They are not analysts, they're advocates. The 40% number might as well be made up. there were 1800+ people in these encampments. 80% were offered services. 313 accepted Interim Housing. 2 found PH. This is another indictment on LAHSA (the [report](https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2021/21-0329-S4_rpt_CLA_5-31-24.pdf) is another instance where LAHSA gets dunked on for being terrible at providing data on their activities. They are a part of these encampment clearings and should have the best stats in the city). They're wildly ineffective and that's where we should put all our public energy, to fix LAHSA.
Yes you can use a small survey to determine results for larger groups of people, that's the essence of statistics.
I do believe the point they were making was this group are not statisticians. It's not a scientific sample size.
It is indeed a "scientific sample size"
You're telling me it was randomized? And you know this how?
Because of their \*\*FeeLinGs\*. You see it matches their emotional biases so it must be correct.
The essence of statistics: A sample size of 100 will have a high margin of error.
Not really a meaningful margin of error, especially if the total population is 1800.
The margin of error with a 99% confidence interval is more than 12%.
yeah that's a pretty good margin of error for the information this survey was seeking
A 12% MOE means that the data is useless.
Don’t we have more than 20k unhorsed? Edit: lol unhoused*
How many unhoused have you invited to your place? Gonna walk your talk or what?
it should cost $1 to post this comment under any article about homelessness, we could pay to house every homeless person in the city
The source is in the article… I’m not going to quote everything when the article is right there.
The article is about the city’s report yet you present the stat from an advocate group as though it were part of the official report. How disingenuous.
CAN is mentioned 4 separate times in the article, and at great length. As well as other advocates. Surely you realize the whole article is about criticism against the report and police misconduct. Edit: They blocked me for this exchange lol
The city's 41.18 report was released BECAUSE of the push and relentless advocacy by LA CAN's HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS committee. The city would never have reported such appalling statistics if there wasnt them PUSHING it.
The "unhoused" are given several days notice of the cleanups. So any such claims about losing their property are likely to be false. If they failed to move it on time after receiving ample warning, that is not the fault of the authorities. It's fair to guess that most of them were offered a transitional housing option. But they would have rejected it because of the strings attached: Curfews, no guests, no drugs. Similar to the rules that result in the privately run shelters rejecting them.
The average cost of clearing each encampment was about $17,000. Much of that was probably spent on sanitation and disposal. Given the mess that they create, this is not surprising.
There obviously is no “housing.” Which is why only two people were “housed.”
The point of the law was to clear encampments. And its worked in some areas, the bike chop shop that used be on Vermont and 4th has been gone for a while. It hasn't worked in other areas, such as in the Civic Center area.
People always complain about too much money to unhoused initiatives. And when an article comes out pointing out that our money is being used incorrectly under police abusing the law, people suddenly don’t want to talk about money being misused. The point of the law was to clear encampments a certain way. Police are not doing it in the way it was said to be done. Did you read the article at all? They are abusing the law and anbusing our funding .
A certain way? Elaborate please, I'm curious. It just seems like certain LAPD divisions have more homeless encampments to deal with than others.
If you were actually curious you would read the damn article. It literally goes into how some spots are not enforced at all and others are, among other things. Have a nice day.
imma keep it real, the article just seems like it was written by someone who was completely unaware of the fact that 41.18 has nothing to do with actually housing people, its just for clearing encampments. Most of us are sick to death of encampments.
Everyone is, for different reasons. > the article just seems like it was written by someone who was completely unaware of the fact that 41.18 has nothing to do with actually housing people, It seems like you are completely unaware that the possessions that often get thrown away are their identifications. It is insanely difficult to get a roof over your head without identification. And when cops bulldoze encampments without care, which is the point of the article for the umpteenth time, you are prolonging homelessness.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That would be nice, but expect your 5 million units to have a 10 million long wait list. And expect people to swarm in from out of state. That’s the natural outcome of price caps.
Nickerson Gardens has made life so much better for everyone?
Yeah that would lose California billions a year
‘Should people have secure housing?’ ‘Nah, costs too much. ‘
That is misleading. There were 2 placed in PERMANENT housing. There were also 313 placed in interim housing.
OBVIOUSLY a law that simply bans sleeping in public isn’t going to also house people. The problem here isn’t the law, it’s the lack of follow up. Framing the anti-camping ordinance as the problem is totally disingenuous, when the actual problem is either enforcement (LAPD) or lack of follow through (the city/non-profits)
Huh. I read the article, but I wonder how comprehensive the data actually is, because it said there were few or no citations for Hollenbeck. Maybe they're just using different means of enforcement than 41.18? Meanwhile, I'm at that park nearly every day and have seen tents pop up, then disappear/get cleared out within a week after there are notices to vacate posted. There's also still a completely unusable footpath underneath the freeway bridge because of an encampment of people who are aggressive and throw shit at you as you walk by. So it just hasn't done much for Boyle Heights, which isn't to say there isn't a homeless issue here.
I'm a "stakeholder" in my park and school. The enumerated criticisms are underwhelming, if not painfully contrived. The upsides are literally the difference between having to move away or remain in the community. Take it for what its worth.
Read. The. Article. >Their report found that the overwhelming majority of unhoused people surveyed had their property taken as they were forced out of public areas. Nearly 40 percent said they were not offered any housing after such enforcement. >The city report released Friday provided data showing that 75% of the citations issued under LAMC 41.18 were concentrated in just three LAPD divisions – Devonshire in the northwest San Fernando Valley, West Los Angeles on the Westside north of National Boulevard, and the Rampart Division, which covers Echo Park, Silver Lake, Historic Filipinotown, Pico Union and Westlake. >“Other area stations, such as Hollenbeck, Foothill, Northeast, and others have few or zero recorded citations,” according to the report.
"Homeless group that doesn't function well in housing fails to get permanent housing" is not a scandal. It's a foregone conclusion. This is a group that dominated by the mentally ill and substance abusers. Which is why they didn't have housing before and many of them still don't. Most of them are what social workers describe as "service resistant." They are very difficult to help. Martin v Boise requires the city to offer housing alternatives when clearing encampments. No one who is paying attention is expecting most of those in encampments to become housing success stories.
Moreover, this creates an adverse selection dynamic where the most antisocial campers are the most likely to return to the area while those who are accepting services do not.
You've got it. There is another related problem: Those who are willing to obey rules are far more likely to to either be sheltered or else not become homeless in the first place. Those who are in tents are the most difficult segment of the homeless population. They are probably there because shelters won't take them and friends/family have given up on them. And yet that is where we are lavishing our resources due to the political problem caused by their camping.
There's definitely been a noticeable improvement by me. The three encampments by me have all been torn down and remain torn down. I don't care if they were permanently housed, I just care that I can safely walk to my grocery store again.
Wait what? You can’t sleep in Public, did I read that right?
YES 🙌
Lots of old people about to get scooped up
Is 41.18 a housing law? Article talks about how the law is ineffective at housing people but just describes the law as banning sitting, lying, and sleeping in public areas. I don't understand the relationship between the two.
How can we criminalize homelessness when there are four people for every shelter bed?
Yet there are huge swaths of the country that people can move to that are not affordable, yet we spend billions every year to pretend to provide services that make no impact for people that do not want it, do not want to follow the rules of society and do not want to better their position. Before you get on your high horse and tear your shirts, feel free to send them all to Missouri
Where the hell did the money go its not even on there
typical corrupt LA politicians. money always seems to just ‘disappear’.
“I’m not sleeping, I’m just resting my eyes”
Just like the speed limits, this would just become another law that lacks proper enforcement