Inflammatory headline which isn’t helpful. What the law actually does is say you can’t have tents in public spaces when housing is available. The logic is similar to: you can’t urinate on the grass on when there’s a public restroom available. You can disagree with its practicality, or believe it is wrong, but misrepresenting the truth doesn’t make for a healthy discussion.
1 Like
“The houseless shelter/tiny house community in my city doesn’t allow drugs or alcohol on the premises”
That’s one of reasons unhoused people don’t use these programs. In other cases, couples (or larger groups) won’t be housed together, and some of these communities don’t allow pets.
Programs that house people UNCONDITIONALLY have been much more successful.
7 Likes
So please explain where these people are meant to sleep, since in many cases like this, the reason why they are sleeping in tents in public spaces is because the city has drastically cut funding for public housing and for homeless shelters.
There very often is not.
Open your eyes. They are lying to you, and you are helping them to brutalize your fellow man.
Jesus fucking wept.
I mean, how difficult is this for people to grok. Put people in housing and they have a much better chance at getting back on their feet. 
12 Likes
I’m not familiar with the area, but are the proposed housing options and the “Virginia Parking Lot” camping option in walking distance of services and jobs? Where I am on the east coast, that’s a huge issue with housing solutions. If you’re living in a tent on the sidewalk, you probably don’t have a functioning vehicle.
Just as a heads up, at least in the US I’m pretty sure you’re not allowed to publicly urinate even if there isn’t a public restroom available. So kind of a weird example.
7 Likes
In suburban California? x2000.
Oh, boy. I have some Douglas firs to apologize to…
9 Likes
They’re not the ones complaining. In fact, they told me to tell you thanks for the extra nitrogen, and happy Valentine’s Day.
8 Likes
5 Likes
Yeah people voted in a camping ban where I live too but for the life of me I don’t know what to call it if it isn’t “criminalizing homelessness” as it’s literally making visible homelessness a criminal offence. Btw it’s been basically impossible to enforce here in any sane way so it’s just made a bad situation worse.
9 Likes
I’m honestly a trifle surprised they are being so lukewarm about it.
If you’re fundamentally a petty HOA control freak why not just own it and proclaim that damaging property values is a species of property crime that creates a right of private action on the part of affected property owners. Then maybe do a sweetheart deal that converts any remaining public ways into ‘privately owned public spaces’ with your favorite developer and you’ve got the whole place buttoned up so the rentacops can take you to debtors prison just for getting within sight while looking undesireable.
1 Like
Well, because it’s Los Angeles. You need a little more political cover than that to be a cold hearted monster in a blue town. Things like eliminating the unhoused are done with more subtlety. You pass a law that sounds reasonable to the latte drinkers and gives police permission to harass people until they cross the border into El Segundo or Hawthorne. Then the good software engineers and interior designers don’t have to step over an addict on the sidewalk on the way back to their Tesla parked outside A-Frame (Roy Choi’s pickled tomatoes are amazing, you know) and everyone is happy. They can tell themselves they have made the world a better place by incentivizing poor people to fix themselves.
6 Likes
Because making bus travel less enjoyable for everyone, means that less people is going to use it making it more expensive. To stay in budget the service is going to be reduced or cut.
2 Likes
I can’t find out if Albert Vera, Mayor of Culver City is a Republican or a Democrat. Seeing as he wasn’t elected by the citizens of Culver City but appointed by the City Council it probably doesn’t matter.
I live in the next zipcode over from CC and I can’t tell either.
1 Like
I believe Santa Monica and Culvery City conduct local politics as “non-partisan” and there aren’t the regular political parties. In Santa Monica the political parties were Renters vs Landowners but I try real, real hard not to pay attention now.
4 Likes
I think this is a bad way to hide a symptom, and not cure the cause.
The problem in California, especially Bay area is the lack of housing in general, not only affordable housing, but in general houses to be sold at market price. The soulless residential single family areas without any shop or, heaven forbids, office or craftsman workshops that can’t have even duplex or four families houses, or small condos is the problem. Culvert City isn’t the worts offender, at least roads are straight and some duplex are present, but when a 150 square mete wood house built just aftew WWII is sold at $1,7 million middle class people buys homes that mormally were owned by lower class people tha can’t find an home anymore.
1 Like
5 Likes
I got the gist of that years ago, when I’d occasionally tune into KCRW’s broadcast of the city council meeting. I know right-wingers like to call it “The People’s Republic of Santa Monica”, but they’d find they have a lot in common with the Landowners (despite the fact that they go to great pains to identify as progressives when they have the mic).
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
