Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder <a href="http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2006/04/aclu_wins_a_round_on_home.html" target="_blank">http://www.laobserved.com/arch ive/2006/04/aclu_wins_a_round_on_home.html</a> ACLU wins a round on homeless Los Angeles' ordinance deeming it illegal for anyone to "sit, lie or sleep in or upon any street, sidewalk or public way"—essentially making it a crime to be homeless—was ruled a constitutional violation today by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw cited the disputed numbers bandied about of 11,000 to 12,000 homeless people on Skid Row here in authoring the ruling.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe What's the solution Pass as the vagrancy does hurt the businesses? It seems an impossible situation.
Originally Posted By AZDLDad Hmmmmm- What would you do if you were a multi-millionaire, or should I say what would I do? As is this judge? I would figure out a way to assist/entice these people, into another location. Granted, I know that some of these persons do not want or cannot fathom getting a 'helping hand'. But, why is it that vagrants/homeless people are always in the core of every town/city? I do not propose to have any answers at this time. It's just that I think a judge/person with such powerful connections could do way better than create a new law to sweep these people into the alreay strained penal systems.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder So all those who vilify the ACLU have nothing to say? I thought everything they did was vile? Helping the homeless, that's not vile?
Originally Posted By utahjosh The ACLU can do something good once in a while. But most of the time, I am completely against what the things they represent. that is all.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Ah, but we can't be selective about the laws we enforce, can we?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Helping the homeless, that's not vile?> I'm not sure that allowing the homeless to sleep on sidewalks and in public parks is helping them. I think it's more likely that it's just enabling bad behavior.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I'm not sure that allowing the homeless to sleep on sidewalks and in public parks is helping them. I think it's more likely that it's just enabling bad behavior." I think what you need is a better understanding of the homeless situation here in L.A. It isn't as if they're being "allowed", but more to the point right now, they have nowhere else to go. Police Chief Bratton's solution to the rampant homeless problem was to enforce this ordinance, which as the article says, essentially makes it a crime to have no place to go. Recently, a Kaiser Permanente Hospital here was caught on videotape putting a homeless woman in a cab and having her dropped off at Skid Row. She had received treatment, had no insurance, and after they gave her some minimal care rather than keep her or drive her to a shelter, they had the cab driver just drop her off on the street. Other jurisdictions had been routinely putting their homeless on buses and taking them to L.A., leaving them on Skid Row. As a result of this, the county Board of Supervisors just passed a bill authorizing $100 million to go towards "destination centers" for homeless throughout L.A. County. Along with several other colleagues and other agencies, I found out we're all being considered to be part of a task force that will set policy for these places. I recite all this because arresting them isn't the solution. As we all know, there are a myriad of reasons why people end up homeless. I think it's somewhat ludicrous to suggest that "allowing them to sleep on sidewalks enables bad behavior." In more than a few instances, it is because the "system" and our government have failed these people miserably.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Also, I think the judges did not rule out reviving the arrest policy once there were enough shelter beds to handle the homeless population.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Also, I think the judges did not rule out reviving the arrest policy once there were enough shelter beds to handle the homeless population." Exacty. Once there are enough places for the homeless, and if one purposely chooses to be on the street when there is a bed for him or her, then an arrest could be proper. Arresting them when they have no other place to go is asinine.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I think what you need is a better understanding of the homeless situation here in L.A.> Is there something unique about L.A. as opposed to most big cities where homelessness is a problem?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Also, I think the judges did not rule out reviving the arrest policy once there were enough shelter beds to handle the homeless population.> If the ordinance violates the constitution, then it violates the constitution. It shouldn't matter how many shelter beds there are.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Frisco pays their homeless. Frisco has lots of homeless people for some reason. Their downtown area sucks because of it. Compare this to Houston who doesn't put up with a large homeless population just hanging around.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF ^^^ The amount that SF pays to the homeless was greatly reduced a few years ago as part of the Care Not Cash program passed by voters (myself included). The idea behind it is to divert the cash into services to help deal with the homeless problem.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF I can't speak, however, to how much things have changed since Care Not Cash went into effect. I've been to SF four times this year (just returned from there on Saturday) but have not spent much time downtown other than to work. I have seen articles here and there about success stories of getting people off the streets and becoming more productive, but overall I don't know how successful the program is. I still see panhandlers (including a couple I remember from my time living in SF), but I see fewer overall. Maybe the SFers can give their thoughts...
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I think one thing that should be looked at is how the physically and mentally disabled are treated. Back in the 70's-80’s many of these people were de-institutionalized. This was done supposedly to increase the freedom and rights of the disabled, but I suspect the true reason was to reduce the government expense of keeping them open. A large percentage of people like this are now homeless. I think we need to recognize that a large percentage of those physically and mentally disabled are NOT going to be able to be self-sufficient and that they should be placed in a care setting where they can get the housing and medical assistance they need. There are also a significant percentage of homeless people who work but do not make enough to afford housing... especially in a market like Los Angeles. The minimum wage should be increased to the point that any person working full time can afford housing. Of course the businesses who object to the homeless sleeping on the street would also object to a higher minimum wage. I think it would make a great deal of sense to tie the minimum wage to the local cost of living. Let's face it... people with "higher level†positions are paid extra to compensate for the high cost of living in Southern California. Why shouldn't the minimum wage also be designed to reflect that? There are many problems in this country that could be solved relatively easily if we ever decided we wanted to solve them instead of talk about them.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<I think we need to recognize that a large percentage of those physically and mentally disabled are NOT going to be able to be self-sufficient and that they should be placed in a care setting where they can get the housing and medical assistance they need. >> If they can't take care of themselves I agree. But how many actually fit into this group is the question?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<If they can't take care of themselves I agree. But how many actually fit into this group is the question?>> 42% according to this research: <<It is estimated that roughly 25% of homeless persons suffer from long term or permanent disabilities. The Economic Roundtable study noted that overall, one-fifth of those studied suffered from a physical disability. The 2002 Pasadena study cited a 27.9% physical disability rate and the Pomona, La Verne, Claremont report indicated a 33% physical disability rate. The incidence of HIV/AIDS appears to be higher than the general population, particularly in the downtown/Skid Row area. The Downtown Women.s Needs Assessment (2001) noted that 3.4% of those surveyed reported that they were HIV+. The corresponding figures for the City of Los Angeles; Pomona, La Verne, Claremont; and Pasadena were 3%, 2.7%, and 1%, respectively.41 According to the Economic Roundtable study, disability figures rises to 42% when both mental and physical disabilities are considered.>> Source: <a href="http://www.weingart.org/institute/research/other/pdf/homelessness_in_los_angeles-a_summary_of_recent_research.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.weingart.org/instit ute/research/other/pdf/homelessness_in_los_angeles-a_summary_of_recent_research.pdf</a>
