United States The Golden State (CA) Thread
- Thread starter 49ersfootball
- Start date
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Meh, the Tiny House movement is a scam anyway. I spent a lot of time looking at it and examining the process from various angles because I wanted to see if I could leverage it for more rental income.
Problem is, Tiny Houses are outrageously expensive per square foot. The actual expensive part of the house isn't the walls and floor, it's the toilet, sink, stove, dishwasher, etc. and those are going to cost just as much in a 200sq. ft. home as a 2000sq. ft. home. So while the Tiny Home gets a bit cheaper for not having to pay for walls, roof, and foundation, it's not proportional and you basically give up most of your square footage for no reason.
It works in situations like hotels and dorms where you're not actually replicating full facilities for each house and have things like shared bathrooms, laundries, and kitchens, but then you run into the issues of needing somebody in charge to make sure one guest doesn't monopolize the laundry and such which rarely ends well if you're trying to cram lots of homeless in one space.
49ersfootball
Well-known member
Expecting more people moving to the following States:
Billboards are going up in California urging residents not to move to Texas and nobody knows if the people behind it are Californians or Texans 😂
Could go either way, really!notthebee.com
*TX: my home state.
*LA
*NC
*TN
*AR
*GA
*FL
*SC
*OK
*KY
*WV
*AZ
*ID
49ersfootball
Well-known member
Or just bus the homeless people to DC, NYC & Atlanta.
49ersfootball
Well-known member
Posted with favorite comment attached.
I'll note this bizarre measure was actually proposed by the Unite Here Local 11, a Union representing hospitality workers in California. It's opposed by the Valley Industry & Commerce Association, which represents hotel owners. So it appears to be at least partially a faction fight between the bosses and workers being fought by proxy through their respective unions.
Homeless also aren't going to be housed for free, the businesses will be paid going market rates by the government for each room filled by a homeless person. So the Ritz is going to be getting 1500 a room for each homeless at the taxpayer's expense. It also looks like this law is going to have some weird interactions with the real estate market that will (I know, this is a stunner) make building new homes more difficult because of course it will.
Should vacant hotels in Los Angeles house the homeless? Voters will decide. | CNN
On an average night in Los Angeles County, more than 60,000 people are homeless. And on an average night, there are more than 20,000 vacant hotel rooms. In 2024, residents will get to vote: Should those vacant rooms be offered to the unhoused?www.cnn.com
When did the homeless crisis began to escalate ? I know most of the blame is pointed at Moonbeam during either his 3rd or 4th term in the CA Governor's Mansion.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
It pretty much started under Reagan. Previously to that administration, Insane Asylums were still a thing outside of horror movies and it was extremely common for people who didn't actually belong there to get locked away as "insane" if they were inconvenient for rich relatives. No trial, just a diagnosis from Dr. Bribable MD. So needless to say this was massively abused. Basically the whole shitshow with Britanny Spears' dad being her "Conservator" and controlling every aspect of her life into her 40s including handling all her money and drugging her into compliance? Imagine that, times a million, and if the victim complained and sought their own lawyer to get free they could be shuffled off to a
Reagan did away with the Asylums entirely which ended some massive injustices but also threw out the baby with the bathwater by making it illegal to put anybody in there, even genuinely mentally ill patients who actually needed treatment unless said patients agreed to it themselves. Many wouldn't agree to it and wandered off, and in other cases the Asylums simply died for lack of patients so even the ones that wanted help couldn't get it anymore. So the homeless problem started snowballing as suddenly a number of mentally ill people who needed that medical care were out on the streets.
California's homeless woes have been steadily building since. They already, due to being, well, California, had the lion's share of the asylum patients to begin with. Due to the extremely lax polices, extensive social programs, and pleasant weather in SoCal, the homeless congregate there. It's become significantly worse in recent years as other towns and states have started to round up their homeless population and bus them to California in order to get rid of them (Seattle and Hawaii have similar problems, so much that Hawaii started flying the homeless back to other states in retaliation).
This wasn't part of the "tiny house" movement, this was part of a plan to give homeless people a more secure place they could live. They were basically one-room shacks that were actually pretty nicely built, with decent doors and windows that could be locked, which was the most important aspect of them. They set them up in the vacant lots that these people were living in anyway, but, again, the city didn't like this and destroyed them, so these people had to go back to living in shacks made of garbage, which the city is apparently perfectly okay with. So all that money and time that went into making these nice sheds went completely down the toilet, because like I said, the city destroyed them rand dumped them in the landfill.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Huh, wasn't aware of that. Even worse then.
The idea was just to give people an address and a at least somewhat secure place to keep their stuff, and be able to sleep at night, so they could have more of a shot at finding employment and not have their stuff get stolen. Because basically every employer requires someone to have an address, and a lot of jobs you need to get stuff for, like a uniform, or high vis vests, or tools, so if some crackhead steals your shit, you're that much more fucked. And it was actually working. So naturally the government couldn't let that be. 
Robovski
Well-known member
Much better they live in a public thoroughfare in a bus shelter or a closed shop's front door, or just take over a sidewalk right? Can't have even a marginal improvement, it must be all or nothing. This is a problem that needs several different solutions as this is a multi-source problem. There are those who are just simply insane. There are those who need a second chance and a secure restart, there are those that need to be ensured that they stay on their medication that we cannot require them to take, there are those with other crippling problems phytologically or with drugs that they need specialized help and none of these people really get much help because this is such a huge problem. You don't get this many homeless up north because it's too damn cold in the winter, you live outside in -20F you die without shelter. Here it rarely even freezes at the coldest time of the year. Long Beach (where I am) has already bought several motels for the purpose of housing the homeless, which I guess is an answer for some of those needing that fresh start but really there will be those who are resistant and doesn't help those with other needs, and some of those can only be helped against their will which brings us back to the asylums previously mentioned that we don't have and so there is prison which I feel is not the right answer.
What amendment is that? The closest one I can think of in this context is the one that forbids forcing citizens to host soldiers.
Last edited:
In San Francisco, the richest city in the Union, in the district of Castro, small businesses are threatening to with hold taxes and city business fees in an act of civil disobedience until the San Francisco Governments deals with the perennially worsening 'Homeless' problem.
It wont work, yet.
California needs to do a lot worse before we accept we fucked up.
Robovski
Well-known member
Good for them.
Sergeant Foley
Well-known member
How long has the homeless crisis been escalating in San Francisco?
49ersfootball
Well-known member
Basically this crisis was kicked down the road by his successors Moonbeam, Deukmejian, Wilson, Davis & Schwarzenegger 🤔
Californians asked to keep AC at 78 and nix electric vehicle charges to spare grid - Washington Examiner
California grid operators warned residents to prepare for voluntary energy cuts and other emergency measures, such as turning down the air conditioning and forgoing electric vehicle charges, as the state braces for a period of excessive heat expected to last through Tuesday. The California...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
California: Ban the sale of gasoline engine cars. Buy electric cars instead.
Also California: Don't charge your electric cars.
Why? Because they were against LA's zoning laws?
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
A lot of tortured troll logic went into it. Having done some research earlier, the city claimed that if they have homes, the homeless may engage in prostitution, drug dealing, or other illegal activity in them. So apparently the homeless have to stay in tents instead.
L.A. is seizing tiny homes from the homeless
Escalating their battle to stamp out an unprecedented spread of street encampments, city officials have begun seizing tiny houses from homeless people in South Los Angeles.
www.latimes.com
The designer of the project suspects otherwise, and points out that when he's building these tiny homes for 1200, it's harder for the city to ask for 2 billion for a new initiative for the homeless that won't do anything.
Los Angeles declares war on tiny houses donated to the homeless
A Los Angeles man took his city's homeless problem into his own hands by building dozens of tiny houses and donating them to people living on the street.
mashable.com
To be fair, it looks like the guy was leaving the tiny homes under bridges and such and I can see why those would be in the way and irritate people. There have been similar projects that have been more successful in other towns, generally by getting permission from the city first and using private land to build shelter parks.