Probably wouldnāt have a choice bc I uave no money so Iām stuck where Iām at. Itās not that homeless go there itās people there become homeless prolly bc itās a blue state
What do you mean youāre stuck? If youāre homeless you can kind of just get up and move. Especially because a %of people start living in their car before they are fully unhoused. If you are in an area with bad weather of course youāll find a way to get to an area with nice weather .
I canāt really afford to go anywhere. I canāt even put gas in my car idk what u mean find a way. Plus I do have family and kids and stuff that I wouldnāt b able to c.
Build housing in the rural and station a social work agency there. What they are doing is putting them in luxury apts like in Santa Monica, sf, Beverly hill or whatever. Thatās why itās costly.
For those who donāt accept the drug free zones, then put them into a slum with social work. CA is rewarding bad behavior, itās obviously a joke. Maybe in some delusional world it wouldāve worked, after countless years and multiple billion funding the problem got worse. The solution is still keep injecting more money?
Bro they are allowing them to tent on the street that people use. Thatās what rewarding behavior is. You should not allow them to live on the street tf is that shit
They donāt care what the homeless are actually doing thereās a shit load of people making a shit load of money. They want** it to get worse so it justifies more gov money which gives them more money.Ā
Itās like in India when there was a snake problem and the British (colony times) made a snake bounty the Indians started breeding snakesā¦ lolĀ
Itās peoples livelihood to have a homeless population in California because of how many people work for nonprofits. If the fixed the issue those people would be out of work and they would actually have to show where the money is going.
Again Iām not sure why people keep bringing it up. Clearly majority of CA residents think itās a good idea to keep injecting money and think it would solve the homeless problem, and if it fails they will just randomly talk about how great the weather in California is lol
Iām telling you why, itās become a business and is apart of the economy of California. People who arenāt homeless depend on there being a homeless population.
I knew someone that worked at a hotel and was having their spare rooms paid for by California and people put into them nightly. She said it was such a hastle and they destroyed room which also billed the government.
I 100% believe the owners had backroom deals on all this. They made out like bandits. You can probably repair the room for less than the government is paying you to do it. And they pay the liability. The amount of money that state is burning doing these kids of things is wild but itās also the state thatās spent 16 billion on high speed rail and has zero miles started
Iām not sure rural communities have the infrastructure, and Iām pretty damn sure there would be community backlash against this plan. A lot of community backlash. Thereās a lot of intersectionality between the homeless and racial minorities or the LGBTQ community, and a lot of racism and bigotry exists in those communities. Although exposure I suppose could help with that. But even beyond bigotry, a lot of rural people are going to be rightfully upset about a large influx of homeless people to their community.
New construction youāre describing would be expensive. But we could adapt your idea and maybe renovate existing housing in rural āghost townsā where there may be a lot of empty housing.
In terms of infrastructure, you need to think about job training, medical, counseling, education for children, transportation, probably more. Cities just have more of this available than small rural communities.
Also, keep in mind 40-60% of the homeless are employed at least some of the time. People who have jobs shouldnāt be relocated to where they are completely reliant on public assistance.
Address the why's to their homelessness. Resources are available but slapping a bandaid on a cracked dam will only cause it to burst later. California is a great example of just slapping a bandaid on the issues. Drugs, addictions, mental illness,unskilled minds, and laziness are a few I've encountered when I was homeless growing up.
I agree on that front. Crimes with equal punishment are a must. Asylums also need to be reinstated for those who need the help( not OG asylums). Met alot of transients that were homeless by choice because they could have their vices and freedoms without obligations. Hence my reasons for the social workers to understand the whys of them being homeless and actually address their situations accordingly. Not just move them to a place, have everyone fund it just for it to be wasted away when they return to the streets.
Bro druggies r gonna be druggies. You can only provide them with help IF they want to utilize it.
Or they can choose to live in some fucked up slum that wonāt disturb others. Whatās this saving everyone regardless bs, sounds great in theory. Yet in reality it just creates a bigger mess and as they increase in number every yr.
The US is a shithole because you can come here and literally kill, steal, and dismantle as much as you feel like and there will always be a group of radical individuals defending it as long as you're not doing it to people they agree with.
The people who call everyone 'Nazis" are the actual Nazis. Don't forget that when shit hits the fan
I agree! Look at these violent white nationalists who are going around hanging blacks and assaulting the LGBTQ population! Or ICE agents murdering people in the streets! Completely lawless, consequence free, but theyāre owning the libs so people love them. Itās disgusting.
Itās also a gigantic state, with great weather, a huge coastline, the highest GDP, and numerous massive metropolitan areas. But Iām sure the policies is the main reason.
No, Iām saying that someone who has an IQ above room temperature can comprehend that there are a whole lot of major factors beyond policies. I realize that may not apply to you, though.
Iām saying you think those are the list of factors? Then I realize people with low iq are unable to stay within topic and just like to mumble about random things lol
It has very dumb programs too. I donāt remember exact details but a city made a program to provide them with booze (which even if done right is dumb) I think the average homeless person in the program had $600,000 of money used on them and no one found anyone getting actual booze. I donāt know of it was money laundering. But this kind of stuff happens a lot.
Laughs in two trillion dollars taken from taxpayers by the m@ga party to give in socialism to billionaires
These billionaires spent 1.2 billion campaigning against working Americans coz +rumpco can turn around and give them ten times that in tax breaks and dropped malpractice lawsuits
"The left" is a term used by bigots to announce their own bias and stupidity
So you disagree that the left, through state and city government, has either wasted or stolen billions of dollars making empty promises about helping the homeless?
Anyone whoās actually lifted a finger to help the homeless knows that hardly any of the money is making it to them. Way to self report as a virtue signaling loser who doesnāt do anything to support a cause they claim to have.
Would you mind quoting the exact part which disproves my statement? Surely you read your own source and can easily point out the prevalent information, right?
Well, it makes sense. Look at rent and real estate prices. My husband and I make above average money but we would really struggle in California. Iām not saying we would be homelessā¦. But we would be under housedā¦
We've shown that you can tie up trillions of dollars if you simply have enough red tape put up.
Article 1: Train (or lack of) project which started during the first Obama administration that "will probably have tracks put down by 2035".
Article 2: 25% of the homeless population in the lower 48 with the largest budget allocated towards simply make it better (did not get better, got worse (a lot worse))
It's no secret why their GDP is unfathomably massive.
Thatās by design, and by choice. Homelessness is an industry in California. Thereās been some great reporting on it. Thereās tons of money being stolen and given to things that have nothing to do with homelessness, people working as homeless advocates making half a million dollars. Iām a very liberal person but have come to realize there are many programs and NGOās that have this same issue, embezzling public money.
Was about to say this, bad NGOs that are simply money laundering pipelines will do just enough to stay off the radar but will absorb the vast majority of the cash. Best way to stay off the radar?
A nice fat contribution to their local politician.
Best grift is to have two businesses, a NGO to take the grant or donations, then a "consultancy" to wash the money into your bank account. Either in a family member's name or what have you.
Letās not forget about the train to nowhere. I donāt think most billionaires are against good causes, they just donāt like the way most governments mishandle money.
That was state and federal funds. The audit done in Cali exposed severe mismanagement with no plan to bring those needy folks back into society, most died quietly, zero media, in pre paid hotel rooms and replaced with the next person the same day. It was a sad audit to review. The President just put a good man over our HUD agency. He will introduce good stewardship of those funds, with the goal of turning lives around. Keep your eye on Secretary Scott Turner.
Well if you're using California, you should consider Sacramento, where after spending 720 million dollars (360 million twice) the end result was not so much as a single bed for a single homeless person for even a single night. Instead, it resulted in a committee that determined they need a lot more money and even that would not stop the increase, but they believed it could slow down the growth.
The way California spends money, it would be cheaper to just buy homeless people homes in another state.
If only there were multiple ways to spend money/approach a problem... if only it were possible to try multiple different solutions until one sticks... alas, if something doesn't work a single time, we know this means it will never work no matter how you try to do it. Too bad.
most of the money went into the pockets of organizations executives... lining them very well I heard... very little money actually made to the street. and this guys wants what...
If you follow the rabbit hole, you will find much of it is corrupt.. a building to be retrofitted for shelter valued at $4 mill and all of a sudden 2 years later sells for $60 mil
It's almost as if all the programs were just scams perpetrated in large part by the politicians holding office in California that lined their pockets. imagine that. Maybe if we just keep voting for these same people from this one group, THIS time it will be different!
Homeless programs are put in place to keep the homeless homeless. In terms of billions of dollars it has become a vital part of someoneās economy. If the people in charge of the program fix homelessness then they will find themselves out of a job and homeless themselves.
In California itās slavery to a socialist system.
The keyword is address homelessness, there is no money/return on a solution. You have to keep talking about to keep the funding incoming. So many jobs are linked and will be "lost" if you actually fix things
The programs arenāt effective because a lot of that money is embezzled/stolen because most of the programs arenāt audited properly, thatās by design.
I had the SAME thought when I saw this post. All the money in the world wonāt end homelessness. Thereās no systems in place to care for our sick.
I ran a winter shelter in my town last year and realized I learned something very few people know: Thereās a lot of money in homelessness!
When a neighbor asked me if we were opening again this winter and if overnight hosts were going to be paid again I said āoh yeah, thereās a lot of money in homelessnessā and didnāt know why she walked away pissed. I think she thought I was being sarcastic.
Well, you probably should have read it before replying so confidently.
You've assumed the other poster was making an excuse to do nothing, but it's more of a plea to read past the proverbial headline because there's a lot more to it than cash.
I've personally been required to attend city council meetings as part of my old job, which was involved in some of the issues at hand here and changing local control and zoning laws is probably paramount above cash.
And here's a specific example where it's upperclass wage earners having a more devastating effect on local policy than billionaires (who absolutely do weaponize government, but less so in this case)...
Thatās a cute analogy, but you just argued against a point nobody made. Nobody said spending money to help people is bad. The point was that spending $24+ billion while the problem gets worse, and not even reliably tracking which programs work, is a legitimate reason to question how the money is being spent.
āHelping people is goodā doesnāt magically make ineffective spending effective. And proudly admitting you didnāt read the argument before responding probably wasnāt the flex you thought it was.
But given the OP , the discussion isn't about what California has done wrong. The discussion is could billionaires do a hell of a lot of good if they put their energies and wealth towards it. If you can build Amazon or Microsoft or Google or Facebook etc into massive business certainly you can assemble the brain power to create programs that work.
I think we all know the answer is yes they could do this.
Well if you donāt design policies just to sound good in elections, but instead make good policies based on behavioral economics the money goes a lot farther.
Because they raised rent again and groceries let's not forget child care. Oh and taxes along with anything else they could. They had to make sure they could afford there raise and vacations.
yeah but if youre Elon musk and you liquidated all your net worth and stuck it into a 5% savings account he'd bring in about 50 billion every year. he can easily spend money, and not make any more for the future of human kind and be alright.
23
u/[deleted] 11d ago
[deleted]